It's fine to define the messages and their content without the
transport mechanism. That's what SASL and GSSAPI do for example.
Also fine to put transport stuff in separate rfc's.
On Jul 10, 2007, at 5:51 PM, Cat Okita wrote:
On Wed, 11 Jul 2007, Stephen Farrell wrote:
I'm thinking that many vendors supplying management tools and
softwares
are moving towards (remote management) using the WS-Manage standard
(over SOAP/HTTP/TLS). It would make sense to ensure that the
output of
this WG could be implemented and operate with/over WS-Man.
I'm not sure if "out of scope" is the best phrase for that. Perhaps
"transport agnostic" is more what you're after. If so, that's a bit
different, and is to an extent covered by saying that the protocol
should be able to be used in both client/server and store-and-forward
contexts (which did seem to be supported earlier on the list).
I think transport agnostic is more to the point - out of scope leaves
a fine swamp to get stuck in later.
cheers!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The opinions expressed in this message are mine,
not those of Caltech, JPL, NASA, or the US Government.
[EMAIL PROTECTED], or [EMAIL PROTECTED]
