W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > August 2001

RE: PROVREG and XML Protocol

From: Hollenbeck, Scott <shollenbeck@verisign.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 06:59:03 -0400
Message-ID: <3CD14E451751BD42BA48AAA50B07BAD60B84A4@vsvapostal3.prod.netsol.com>
To: "'Mark Nottingham'" <mnot@akamai.com>, Rick H Wesson <wessorh@ar.com>
Cc: ietf-provreg@cafax.se, XML Distributed Applications List <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Mark Nottingham [mailto:mnot@akamai.com]
>Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2001 12:46 AM
>To: Rick H Wesson
>Cc: ietf-provreg@cafax.se; XML Distributed Applications List
>Subject: Re: PROVREG and XML Protocol
>So, if the work in PROVREG was done with an awareness of SOAP, the
>question that I find interesting is:
>Why does EPP use XML for messaging, yet not use what will be XML's
>messaging framework? Is it simply a matter of timing (SOAP is new,
>and there is no TCP binding defined), or is there some other, more
>functional reason?
>Anyone else from PROVREG care to comment?

With the provreg work being done in the IETF, there is a very strong desire,
perhaps even a mandate, to define transport mechanisms based on other IETF
standard protocols.  As Rick noted, when I first started working on EPP SOAP
wasn't really mature enough (see your "what will be" comment above) to be
considered a viable transport candidate, plus there was/is no IETF work
happening to make it a standards track protocol.  That doesn't mean it won't
ever happen, but I do believe it's something that would need to happen
(perhaps as a joint IETF/W3C effort) before XML protocols being developed in
the IETF could consider SOAP transport.

Received on Thursday, 16 August 2001 07:05:31 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 22:01:15 UTC