To:
Richard Shockey <rshockey@ix.netcom.com>
cc:
Rick H Wesson <wessorh@ar.com>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@akamai.com>, ietf-provreg@cafax.se, XML Distributed Applications List <xml-dist-app@w3.org>, brunner@nic-naa.net
From:
Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine <brunner@nic-naa.net>
Date:
Thu, 16 Aug 2001 12:57:04 -0400
In-Reply-To:
Your message of "Thu, 16 Aug 2001 12:20:38 EDT." <5.1.0.14.2.20010816120539.034cbb80@127.0.0.1>
Sender:
owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se
Subject:
Re: PROVREG and XML Protocol
I agree with the general observation: > This admonition not to use HTTP has been made quite clear in several ID's > that are making their way to RFC's. See: > > draft-moore-using-http-01.txt > > Several work groups went down the path of using HTTP as a transport, the > Internet Print Protocol for instance, and that decision has caused them a > boatload of grief. However. draft-moore-using-<whatever> is another matter. Having had the pleasure (none) of attempting to get technical content into draft-iesg-http-cookies-03.txt before it was RFC'd as a BCP, (another Moore draft, co-authored by Ned Freed), the unqualified citation of a cautionary you'll-set-your-hair-on-fire polemic is low on my list of authoritative references. Let's please leave the flamage of port:80 (mis)use to discuss@apps.ietf.org, and stick to core epp objects, operations, transport, extensions, and the operational problems we can solve. draft-foo-epp-http, draft-bar-epp-smtp, draft-baz-epp-avian-carrier, ... these are all reasonable things to attempt. Eric