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

Re: PROVREG and XML Protocol

From: Richard Shockey <rshockey@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 12:25:16 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20010816120539.034cbb80@127.0.0.1>
To: Rick H Wesson <wessorh@ar.com>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@akamai.com>
Cc: <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>, XML Distributed Applications List <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
At 09:59 PM 8/15/2001 -0700, Rick H Wesson wrote:

>Mark,

See note below...


>frankly when EPP started SOAP was just an idea with HTTP as atransport and
>a Apache module. The Registries need a highly robust transport with as
>little cruft ( Apache would be ALOT of cruft ) as possable.
>
>There was also the fact that no transport for SOAP existed at the time
>so it was easy to see that SOAP was not an option.
>
>you can still write up the docs for the transport, but you would have to
>convince a registry to use if.
>
>IMHO, SOAP isns't anything you would use where speed and security are
>required. When it comes down to brass tacks, if we picked SOAP when we
>started we wouldn't have any registries going live any time soon, and we
>have one up and two more out the door in a couple of months.
>
>Companies cant wait for standards w/o transports.The last time I checked,
>I think  thats what we do here, write the standards for whats one the
>wire.
>
>Why doesn't the W3C just standardise on BXXP? Or, should I just not ask
>that question and leave all the layer 10 questions out of it?




There is another serious reason NOT to consider SOAP. The IETF and the IESG 
are rather adamant that HTTP not be used as an transport by future 
application protocols.

One of the major justifications for the creation of BXXP in the first place 
was to create a generalized application transport framework for future IETF 
protocols and attempt to end the abuse of HTTP and Port 80 by protocol 
designers.  This has been a goal of the applications area directors for 
many many years.

There are drafts on binding BXXP to SOAP that I would recommend looking at:

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-etal-beep-soap-01.txt

This admonition not to use HTTP has been made quite clear in several ID's 
that are making their way to RFC's.  See:

draft-moore-using-http-01.txt

Several work groups went down the path of using HTTP as a transport, the 
Internet Print Protocol for instance, and that decision has caused them a 
boatload of grief.

Though I do understand the reluctance of some in the provreg community to 
using  BXXP considering its recent creation, I still believe it is 
technically the "right thing to do".


>-rick
> > --
> > Mark Nottingham, Research Scientist
> > Akamai Technologies (San Mateo, CA USA)
> >


 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Richard Shockey, Senior Manager, Strategic Technology Initiatives
NeuStar Inc.
45980 Center Oak Plaza   Bldg 8     Sterling, VA  20166
1120 Vermont Ave NW Suite 400 Washington DC 20005
Voice 571.434.5651 Cell : 314.503.0640,  Fax: 815.333.1237
<mailto: rshockey@ix.netcom.com> or
<mailto: rich.shockey@neustar.com>
<http://www.neustar.com>
<http://www.enum.org>
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Received on Thursday, 16 August 2001 12:46:17 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:03 GMT