> > christian - i'd like to understand any technical concerns you might > > have on the "soap over beep" specification. > > Well, I am mostly concerned to see "SOAP over BEEP" defined before we > define the alternative "SOAP over TCP". I mean, if we are transporting > opaque blobs of data between two points, TCP looks like a no-brainer... christian - i'm interested only in the technical issues. i'll leave the non-technical issues to others. as much as i'd enjoy have a concrete v. abstract discussion, it's not time-effective. so, while i do not wish to discourage your postings in any fashion, i would be most appreciative if your reply to me would enumerate any technical issues you see in the "soap over beep" specification. obviously, you should feel free to send other messages/replies that more fully discuss issues which are either non-technical or not specific to the "soap over beep" specification. thanks, /mtr
- RE: Last Call: Using SOAP in BEEP to Proposed Standard Christian Huitema
- RE: Last Call: Using SOAP in BEEP to Proposed Standard Clemm, Geoff
- RE: Last Call: Using SOAP in BEEP to Proposed Standard Eamon O'Tuathail
- Re: Last Call: Using SOAP in BEEP to Proposed Standard Marshall T. Rose
- RE: Last Call: Using SOAP in BEEP to Proposed Standard Christian Huitema
- Re: Last Call: Using SOAP in BEEP to Proposed Stand... Marshall T. Rose
- Re: Last Call: Using SOAP in BEEP to Proposed Stand... Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Last Call: Using SOAP in BEEP to Proposed S... Dave Crocker
- Re: Last Call: Using SOAP in BEEP to Propos... Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Last Call: Using SOAP in BEEP to Pr... Dave Crocker
- Re: Last Call: Using SOAP in BEEP to Pr... Mark Baker
- Re: Last Call: Using SOAP in BEEP ... Brian E Carpenter
- Re: Last Call: Using SOAP in B... Mark Baker
- RE: Last Call: Using SOAP in BEEP to Proposed Standard Eamon O'Tuathail
- Re-visiting the jutification for BEEP Dave Crocker
- RE: Last Call: Using SOAP in BEEP to Proposed Standard Christian Huitema
