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

RE: Protocol Bindings

From: Krishna Sankar <ksankar@cisco.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2001 23:48:37 -0700
To: <xml-dist-app@w3.org>

	Couple of quick observations:

	1.	Agreed. Binding is encapsulation and nothing more, nothing less. And
yes, protocol implies more.

	2.	Before we get to binding, I assume we will articulate an essential set
of what XMLP would need and use. (Which I think is the main theme of
Stuart's e-mail) As Mark pointed out, we can only say what XMLP needs and
any other initiatives like normalizing features provided by other transports
is outside the scope and is a Herculean task. It would be a good
undertaking, though.

	3.	Which also means, if there are more "features" available at the
transport layer, (like the multi-channel capability of BEEP or the publish
capability of UDP) XMLP wouldn't use them. Of course, implementations can
make use of the extra "features" as an optimization.

	4.	Would the XMLP specification have the actual bindings (and examples) for
popular transports like TCP, HTTP, BEEP, ... ?


	The paragraph, "NB: This proposal makes the assumption that the purpose of
a binding is to create a common abstraction across all underlying protocol
that 'hides' the functional differences between different underlying

	*could* read something like

	"The purpose of binding is to create the minimum abstraction required by
XMLP to successfully operate across all protocols and provide
recommendations" as a mission statement and then add the requirements Mark
has in his e-mail.


  |-----Original Message-----
  |From: xml-dist-app-request@w3.org [mailto:xml-dist-app-request@w3.org]On
  |Behalf Of Mark Nottingham
  |Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2001 7:05 AM
  |To: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen; Williams, Stuart; xml-dist-app@w3.org
  |Subject: Re: Protocol Bindings

<snip ../>
Received on Thursday, 5 July 2001 02:47:05 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 22:01:14 UTC