To:
"'Mark Nottingham'" <mnot@akamai.com>, Rick H Wesson <wessorh@ar.com>
Cc:
ietf-provreg@cafax.se, XML Distributed Applications List <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
From:
"Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck@verisign.com>
Date:
Thu, 16 Aug 2001 06:59:03 -0400
Sender:
owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se
Subject:
RE: PROVREG and XML Protocol
>-----Original Message----- >From: Mark Nottingham [mailto:mnot@akamai.com] >Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2001 12:46 AM >To: Rick H Wesson >Cc: ietf-provreg@cafax.se; XML Distributed Applications List >Subject: Re: PROVREG and XML Protocol > > > >Rick, > >So, if the work in PROVREG was done with an awareness of SOAP, the >question that I find interesting is: > >Why does EPP use XML for messaging, yet not use what will be XML's >messaging framework? Is it simply a matter of timing (SOAP is new, >and there is no TCP binding defined), or is there some other, more >functional reason? > >Anyone else from PROVREG care to comment? With the provreg work being done in the IETF, there is a very strong desire, perhaps even a mandate, to define transport mechanisms based on other IETF standard protocols. As Rick noted, when I first started working on EPP SOAP wasn't really mature enough (see your "what will be" comment above) to be considered a viable transport candidate, plus there was/is no IETF work happening to make it a standards track protocol. That doesn't mean it won't ever happen, but I do believe it's something that would need to happen (perhaps as a joint IETF/W3C effort) before XML protocols being developed in the IETF could consider SOAP transport. <Scott/>