Christian Huitema wrote: > > > 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... There are other "SOAP over foo" proposals in the wings too. I do agree that the general question needs looking at. Maybe it's OK to have lots of SOAP mappings, or maybe it isn't. Although mtr may disagree, imho this does need to be considered before deciding to publish a Proposed Standard. Brian
- 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
- RE: Last Call: Using SOAP in BEEP to Proposed Standard Eamon O'Tuathail
