- From: John Ibbotson <john_ibbotson@uk.ibm.com>
- Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2001 08:53:51 +0000
- To: Brian E Carpenter <brian@hursley.ibm.com>
- Cc: Bill Janssen <bill@janssen.org>, Discuss Apps <discuss@apps.ietf.org>, Jim Gettys <jg@pa.dec.com>, Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>, "Marshall T. Rose" <mrose+mtr.netnews@dbc.mtview.ca.us>
And there are many exchange models other than RPC ......
John
XML Technology and Messaging,
IBM UK Ltd, Hursley Park,
Winchester, SO21 2JN
Tel: (work) +44 (0)1962 815188 (home) +44 (0)1722 781271
Fax: +44 (0)1962 816898
Notes Id: John Ibbotson/UK/IBM
email: john_ibbotson@uk.ibm.com
Brian E
Carpenter To: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>
<brian@hursley cc: Bill Janssen <bill@janssen.org>, Jim Gettys <jg@pa.dec.com>,
.ibm.com> "Marshall T. Rose" <mrose+mtr.netnews@dbc.mtview.ca.us>, Discuss
Apps <discuss@apps.ietf.org>
11/29/2001 Subject: Re: Requirements for reliable message delivery
12:16 PM
Eliot Lear wrote:
>
> In the vast volume o this discussion I lost something somewhere. Why
isn't
> BEEP a good college try at a decent baseline upon which strong RPC could
be
> written?
Well, the draft we were originally discussing attempts to answer this.
>
> And why are we pissing and moaning rather than either fixing SOAP or
coming
> up with an alternative?
The draft attempts to list requirements, not exactly for fixing SOAP,
but making it unnecessary to fix it. [i.e. fix the Post Office rather
than the envelope.]
Brian
Received on Tuesday, 4 December 2001 10:53:21 UTC