- From: David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>
- Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2006 15:17:31 -0800
- To: "David Hull" <dmh@tibco.com>
- Cc: "Rich Salz" <rsalz@datapower.com>, <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Received on Thursday, 26 January 2006 23:18:32 UTC
Well, good luck getting a charter passed for specifying a MEP that can't be supported by HTTP and would only be used by a single protocol that is at the IETF and that the IETF group has never said to us that they need. Dave ________________________________ From: David Hull [mailto:dmh@tibco.com] Sent: Monday, January 23, 2006 9:29 PM To: David Orchard Cc: Rich Salz; xml-dist-app@w3.org Subject: Re: The deep difference between request/response and fire-and-forget I'm strongly against standardizing any MEP that can't be deployed on HTTP. That would be very very strange to standardize an MEP and not standardize any bindings for that MEP. It doesn't pass the giggle test at all.. That doesn't pass my giggle test. Do what now? HTTP is the only protocol in the world? Standardize a one-way MEP, bind it to XMPP <message/> and I promise I won't giggle a bit.
Received on Thursday, 26 January 2006 23:18:32 UTC