> As someone who is still coming up to speed on SOAP (would a SOAP server
> be called a dispenser?) I would appreciate the authors and AD responding
> to Mark. Marshall, can you comment on this point? Thus far this is the
> only objection that raised my eyebrows.
ok.
> > Speaking for myself only, I agree; I find the timing of this curious,
> > at the very least. The authors of SOAP submitted 1.1 to the W3C
> > specifically to work towards what is now SOAP 1.2, which is rapidly
> > (at least on the time scale of these things) approaching completion.
there's nothing curious about the timing.
the original draft came out a little over three months ago. there was a fair
amount of discussion on both the beep and xmlp working group mailing lists.
the draft was revised a few times based on that.
after a quiet period of a couple of weeks, i asked the ADs to have it
published. unfortunately, that was right before the london ietf, which
introduced a lot of delay. then there was more management coordination.
then the last call came out.
> > Putting a binding based on 1.1 on the IETF Standards track while 1.2
> > is being finalized seems like poor coordination at best.
i guess it depends on what you mean by the term "finalized".
the I-D in question works with 1.1 and 1.2 and, as explained previously,
contains an extensibility mechanism to deal with 1.x and perhaps even 2.y...
/mtr
