Re: XMLCONF Proposal

[John Stracke <francis@thibault.org>]

On Tue, 2003-02-18 at 17:42, Phil Shafer wrote:
    "Putzolu, David" writes:
    >A couple people have already questioned the need to
    >define yet another RPCoXML.  I looked at what was done 
    >and it seems pretty reasonable, but would like at least 
    >to see some justification for not reusing prior art.
    
    The core justification is that none of the existing art was well
    suited to the needs of the XMLCONF protocol. These needs are
    basically:
    
    - connection-oriented
    - capacity for security and privacy
    - capacity for authentication
    - support for communication channels

What about SOAP over BEEP (RFC-3288)? SOAP gives you RPC semantics; BEEP
gives you a connection with multiple channels, TLS for security, and
SASL for authentication.

-- 
/===========================================================\
|John Stracke        | http://www.thibault.org |HTML OK     |
|Francois Thibault   |======================================|
|East Kingdom        |Until you stalk and overrun, you can't|
|francis@thibault.org|devour anyone. --Hobbes               |
\===========================================================/


--
to unsubscribe send a message to xmlconf-request@ops.ietf.org with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/xmlconf/>