RE: Misunderstanding of SOAP message and protocol binding

["Chen, Weijing" <wchen@tri.sbc.com>]

Then what is your Message Construct over BEEP?  A re-invented XML envelop,
which is similar to SOAP Message Construct, but is DIFFERENT.   Don't
confuse the carrier (transport protocol) and carriee (operation message).



--
Weijing Chen

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Karl Auerbach [mailto:karl@cavebear.com]
> Sent: Friday, May 09, 2003 7:30 PM
> To: xmlconf
> Subject: Re: Misunderstanding of SOAP message and protocol binding
> 
> On Fri, 9 May 2003, Chen, Weijing wrote:
> 
> > Or someone wants to use BEEP binding, he can use BEEP protocol, but with
> the
> > same SOAP Message Construct.
> 
> Why would I want to do that?  It seems to me that BEEP already provides me
> with the needed mechanisms (and existing implementations in a number of
> languages) to carry on a well structured, parallal/multi-flowed, secure,
> reliable dialog between the configuring-user and the being-configured
> device.
> 
> Putting SOAP inside BEEP strikes me as like putting an Airbus into a
> Boeing, and it may be equally unable to get itself off the ground and
> deliver something that is implementable and usable to network operators.
> 
> At the end of the day I want routers and switches that contain software
> mainly there for the purpose of doing routing and switching.  I want my
> memory buffers filled with quickly moving packets, not with redundant
> layers of redundant protocol constructs.
> 
> As I mentioned in an earlier note, I see value in that part of SOAP that
> expresses rules regarding the serialization of various data types.  But I
> fail to see what is to be gained by using either the envelope or RPC
> aspects of SOAP if BEEP is already present.
> 
> I see a risk here of repeating the computer-science over engineering kind
> of non-pragmatism that led to the tower of babel of layers killed OSI.
> 
> So my suggestion is either SOAP or BEEP, not both.  And on the platforms
> that I use, BEEP is rather closer at hand.
> 
> 
> > So someone please tell me why SOAP Message Construct can be not reused
> > beside the reason of NIH syndrome.
> 
> Using SOAP over BEEP is a lot like riding two horses at the same time.
> You don't get to the destination any faster, and the risks of a tumble
> along the way are greatly increased.
> 
> 		--karl--
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --
> 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/>

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