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

Re: PROVREG and XML Protocol

From: Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine <brunner@nic-naa.net>
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 12:57:04 -0400
Message-Id: <200108161657.f7GGv4O53664@nic-naa.net>
To: Richard Shockey <rshockey@ix.netcom.com>
cc: Rick H Wesson <wessorh@ar.com>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@akamai.com>, ietf-provreg@cafax.se, XML Distributed Applications List <xml-dist-app@w3.org>, brunner@nic-naa.net
I agree with the general observation:

> 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.

However. draft-moore-using-<whatever> is another matter.

Having had the pleasure (none) of attempting to get technical content into
draft-iesg-http-cookies-03.txt before it was RFC'd as a BCP, (another Moore
draft, co-authored by Ned Freed), the unqualified citation of a cautionary
you'll-set-your-hair-on-fire polemic is low on my list of authoritative

Let's please leave the flamage of port:80 (mis)use to discuss@apps.ietf.org,
and stick to core epp objects, operations, transport, extensions, and the
operational problems we can solve. draft-foo-epp-http, draft-bar-epp-smtp,
draft-baz-epp-avian-carrier, ... these are all reasonable things to attempt.

Received on Thursday, 16 August 2001 13:01:05 UTC

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