RE: Misunderstanding of SOAP message and protocol binding

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

> 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
>
> ...
> 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.

It is a cute, but a false analogy.  Putting SOAP Message Construct inside
the HTTP or BEEP like putting air cargos or passengers into an Airbus or a
Boeing.  You don't have to know which type of airplane (HTTP or BEEP) you
will be in when you buy your ticket (application to construct the message).
But airline (protocol engine) will get you from point A to B.



--
Weijing Chen


> -----Original Message-----
> 
> 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.
> 
> 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/>