To:
Richard Shockey <rshockey@ix.netcom.com>
Cc:
Rick H Wesson <wessorh@ar.com>, ietf-provreg@cafax.se, XML Distributed Applications List <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
From:
Mark Nottingham <mnot@akamai.com>
Date:
Thu, 16 Aug 2001 09:34:32 -0700
Content-Disposition:
inline
In-Reply-To:
<5.1.0.14.2.20010816120539.034cbb80@127.0.0.1>; from rshockey@ix.netcom.com on Thu, Aug 16, 2001 at 12:20:38PM -0400
Sender:
owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se
User-Agent:
Mutt/1.2.5i
Subject:
Re: PROVREG and XML Protocol
On Thu, Aug 16, 2001 at 12:20:38PM -0400, Richard Shockey wrote: > > There is another serious reason NOT to consider SOAP. The IETF and > the IESG are rather adamant that HTTP not be used as an transport > by future application protocols. Of course. However, SOAP is not constrained to HTTP. Think of it as an XML messaging framework, NOT rpc-using-xml-over-http. The BEEP binding of SOAP is just as valid as the HTTP one. Just to reiterate, I'm less concerned with getting PROVREG to consider SOAP as a solution, and more interested in getting a bit of cross-fertilisation, as both groups are tackling the same problems in many areas. Cheers, -- Mark Nottingham, Research Scientist Akamai Technologies (San Mateo, CA USA)