I'm happy to "put in the time" and make it more concrete, but I'm not going to do this as an academic exercise. I want to ensure that people are interested in this solution. Otherwise, it's a moot point.
regards,
John
John Strassner
Chief Strategy Officer
Intelliden Corporation
90 South Cascade Avenue
Colorado Springs, CO 80903 USA
phone: +1.719.785.0648
FAX: +1.719.785.0644
email: john.strassner@intelliden.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Marshall Rose [mailto:mrose@dbc.mtview.ca.us]
Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2003 3:25 PM
To: John Strassner
Cc: abierman@cisco.com; david.durham@intel.com; xmlconf@ops.ietf.org
Subject: Re: how bad is soap?
i'm going to step into this.
> In response, I'd like to make three points:
>
> 1) Please don't take such a snotty tone; you're not listed as the
> WG chair and even if you were, this tone is unacceptable
i don't read his tone as "snotty". i read it as "exasperated".
> 2) Please don't pass judgment on things you don't have implementation
> experience with. If you understood SOAP and WSDL you would be able
> to easily see the problems that they could solve in your charter.
> The list has given you plenty of feedback saying don't define the
> solution as part of the charter. It's great that you have an I-D
> published, but please stop thinking that this is the ONLY
> solution
right now that one I-D is the only thing being discussed that is not vapor.
i'd like to think that i have more than a passing familiarity with a whole swath of soap and soap-like things; so, i'll certainly agree with you, that in some abstract sense, what you're saying is true.
however, talk is cheap, abstractions even more so. if you want to be taken seriously, then put the time into making your proposal concrete. right now, we're not even comparing "apples" and "oranges", more like "apples" and "orange futures".
> 3) Please reread my email. I asked for a gauge of interest, and also
> said that IFF there was interest, an I-D would be written.
cf., my response to (2) above.
/mtr