W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > March 2002

RE: Need new MEP for SMTP binding

From: Williams, Stuart <skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 12:19:41 -0000
Message-ID: <5E13A1874524D411A876006008CD059F192A25@0-mail-1.hpl.hp.com>
To: "'Mark Baker'" <distobj@acm.org>, noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com
Cc: xml-dist-app@w3.org
Mark, Noah,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Baker [mailto:distobj@acm.org]
> Subject: Re: Need new MEP for SMTP binding
>
> Noah,
> 
> > In that case, almost all email seems to be tunneling through SMTP. 
> > Certainly the majority of my email comes with a Reply-to field as 
> > standardized by RFC 822. I'm uisng it right now to reply to your note! 
> > That feels very much like request/response to me.  I think what we're 
> > doing in sending SOAP over email is absolutely in the spirit of RFC 822 
> > email, as customarily used through SMTP and a variety of other email 
> > systems.
> 
> Stuart and I got into an interesting discussion about this point a while
> ago off-line.  I'm not sure that we reached concensus, but I believe we
> at least acknowledged that the truth lies somewhere between "SMTP is
> already request/response" and "SMTP isn't request/response".  And IMO,
> given the potential security implications, and that it's not well known
> where this line is, I'd rather not toy with it, even as a  demonstration.
> I am concerned that people would use it, or that this type of approach
> may be considered "best practice".  And I certainly wouldn't want my
> name on it - not to overstate things, but I do feel very strongly about
> this.

The off-list discussion that I remember was mostly about drawing the line
between tunneling and non tunneling... and I think our views differ, but
probably in shades of gray. I have more trouble recollecting a particular
discussion about exchange patterns and SMTP.

<snip/> 

> > [FWIW, the reason I think we will eventually need a new MEP is that the 
> > current Req/Resp is implicitly targeted at relatively rapid responses.
In 
> > practice, we hold the HTTP connections open and use HTTP response.  I 
> > think there will be other Req/Resp traffic that will take 
> > minutes/hours/days, and I expect that email would be more commonly used 
> > for that.  I would expect that systems like MQSeries could support
either 
> > a quick or a long running req/resp.
> 
> Quick comment - I'm not sure why the current ReqResp MEP can't support
> this.

I think I agree with Mark, in that I think these differencee are differences
in qualities rather than in the pattern of exchange provided by a binding
and perceived by a SOAP node.

> > Anyway, having mentioned this, I want to reiterate that I would prefer
to close this debate 
> > now (just my preference), agree that we've done everything we need to in
this area for 
> > now, and focus on getting to last call.]
> 
> I wouldn't be against skipping this entire exercise.

Not sure which exercise you're referring to here... the AI's that you and
Jacek took or the whole Email Binding 'exercise'?

> It was a noble goal, but if time does not permit, then we should consider
> not doing it.
> 
> But I would be against saying that we've accomplished something, when
> IMO, we have not.
> 
> MB
> -- 
> Mark Baker, Chief Science Officer, Planetfred, Inc.
> Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.      mbaker@planetfred.com
> http://www.markbaker.ca   http://www.planetfred.com


Stuart
Received on Friday, 15 March 2002 07:21:04 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:09 GMT