RE: Need new MEP for SMTP binding

Mark Baker wrote:
>>In starting work on the SMTP protocol binding however, I feel that it's
>>best to avoid request/response because SMTP is not a request/response
>>protocol. 

I want to be sure I understand the AR given at the 3/6 telecon.  It was my
understanding that the WG agreed to an SMTP/POP3 command appendix at the end
of the previously submitted SOAP Binding to Email document.  

Was there an additional task to develop a new SMTP Binding?  Creating an
SMTP Binding was my original intent when crafting the W3C Note draft
proposal, but a sub team decided to not address email infrastructure
concerns.    

In any event, as originator of this activity and proposal, I would like all
document changes to go through me (which implies involvement by the TBTF).  

Thanks,  Highland

PS Also, I have heard this concern before:

>To do request/response with SMTP would necessarily be
> tunneling, and a major security issue.

Please elaborate or point me to an email thread on the subject.  Thanks
again.

-----Original Message-----
From: Williams, Stuart [mailto:skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2002 7:38 AM
To: 'Mark Baker'
Cc: xml-dist-app@w3.org
Subject: RE: Need new MEP for SMTP binding


Hi Mark,

Not fundementally opposed to your suggestion... but there are a couple of
buts....

First question comes back to whether doing an email/smtp/pop binding as a
proof-of-concept or as a real fully spec'd. For proof-of-concept reuse of a
feature (the RR MEP) seem's like a good thing. I guess that on a
proof-of-concept basis creating an additional MEP would also exercise the
framework.

Ironically, I rather like the one-way with correlation/causality captured in
the AM and would have like that to have been our first 'documented' MEP
rather than request/response - but we chose to do request/response. Email
'Message-ID' and 'In-Reply-To' headers give a means for marking causality.

On hop-by-hop acknowledgement, I think that's a QoS difference in that the
disposition at the sender of sending a message may be: known success; known
failure; or indeterminate. More reliable infrastructures provide more
certainty, less reliable infrastructures gives more indeterminate results.
It's also interesting that you focus (as would I) on the hop-by-hop nature
of the acknowledgement (if not the whole MEP) infering ultimately successful
delivery from hop-by-hop acknowledgements would not be a good idea, they
represent more of a transfer of responsibility to the next SOAP Node.

Regards

Stuart

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Baker [mailto:distobj@acm.org]
> Sent: 14 March 2002 06:23
> To: xml-dist-app@w3.org
> Subject: Need new MEP for SMTP binding
> 
> 
> Currently, the only MEP that's been defined is request/response.  In
> starting work on the SMTP protocol binding however, I feel that it's
> best to avoid request/response because SMTP is not a request/response
> protocol.  To do request/response with SMTP would necessarily be
> tunneling, and a major security issue.
> 
> Would there be any objections to us defining a new MEP that represents
> a one way message with hop-by-hop acknowledgement, like SMTP?  I see
> this as being reusable for any binding to a message queue 
> based transfer
> protocol.
> 
> MB
> -- 
> Mark Baker, Chief Science Officer, Planetfred, Inc.
> Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.      mbaker@planetfred.com
> http://www.markbaker.ca   http://www.planetfred.com
>

Received on Thursday, 14 March 2002 10:53:12 UTC