> ... because the IETF did IP and has the interest in IP.
> In SOAP over BEEP, W3C did SOAP and has the interest in SOAP, so that
> would make SOAP-over-BEEP the W3C's problem.
> In general, I think that foo-over-blah is the foo group's problem.
In general this cannot be right, since it would make all problems the
responsibility of whoever is responsible for a given application and eliminate
the IETF entirely. Example: HTTP began as HTML over TCP, so it is the W3C's
problemn. Repeat with TCP, IP, whatever.
Problems need to be solved by the people with the competence and interest to do
so. And in this case the W3C has said they have neither.
> > The simple fact is that "convergence" layer protocols, that allow one
> > protocol to work on top of another, are separate specification efforts from
> > either of the protocols being converged. It is not automatically better to
> > have the "top" or the "bottom" layer originating standards group do the
> > convergence protocol.
> Meeting the needs of the top layer is imo best understood by the
> top-layer group, which works within the framework already established
> by the bottom-layer group. That way you may well end up with something
> sucky, but at least it should be adequate to the needs of the top
> layer.
That's exactly the logic that has led to bad protocol designs so many
times in the past.
Ned
