Re: XMLCONF Proposal

[Harrie Hazewinkel <harrie@jumpy.it>]

HI,

On Wednesday, February 19, 2003, at 12:09 AM, John Stracke wrote:

> 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.
I start to get a feeling that people do not want to use SOAP
over BEEP. I even agree that SOAP is maybe not the best choice,
but from a perspective of reusing the above requirements
are already available with SOAP over BEEP.

At least this warrants looking into the matter and requires
an explaination 'why not' if it is not chosen.

regards,

Harrie
------------------------------------------------------------------
Author of MOD-SNMP, enabling SNMP management of Apache HTTP server


--
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/>