Marshall,
The use of WSDL, of course, would not necessarily
limit the netconf protocol to SOAP and HTTP. WSDL currently enables
describing bindings to SOAP (over HTTP), MIME (over SMTP I assume, haven't
read much about this) and one other protocol, I believe. WSDL is
extensible, though, and I see no reason why bindings to BEEP could not be
written. What would be needed, however, is a W3C document explaining how
to include a BEEP binding in a WSDL document, and what the information in such
a binding would mean in a real implementation. Then, the people who build
WSDL stub compilers and tool sets could start adding support for BEEP to their
tools and we could eventually leverage that. Is something like this on
the road map for BEEP?
(I posed this question to the BEEPWG email
list a couple of days ago but didn't hear back.)
Keith
Allen
SBC
Technology Resources
9505
Arboretum Blvd.
Austin, TX 78759
(512)
372-5741
kallen@tri.sbc.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