Comparison of ICAP and SOAP

HI, All Where can I find some materials or dicussion on ICAP and SOAP? I think both of them address somewhat the content adapation problem in Internet. Thanks. Wanghong

Re: I am *NOT* a believer in the democratic process.

In a consensus-oriented decision-making framework everybody with an opinion would work together to find some mutually acceptable (not loved - acceptable) accomodation, whether it's sending the work off to another standards body or modifying the charter and having the work done in the IETF.

Re: I am *NOT* a believer in the democratic process.

Keith -- I beg to differ. There are a number of other groups that have considered taking their work to the IETF, but decided instead to just use the IETF WG Processes, as described in the relevant RFCs. They have done this with good results, and I recommend often that this be done by others.

Re: I am *NOT* a believer in the democratic process.

Keith -- I beg to differ. There are a number of other groups that have considered taking their work to the IETF, but decided instead to just use the IETF WG Processes, as described in the relevant RFCs. Indeed they have. But that's orthogonal to the point I was making. So, the answer is,

Re: I am *NOT* a believer in the democratic process.

stef: Keith -- I beg to differ. There are a number of other groups that have considered taking their work to the IETF, but decided instead to just use the IETF WG Processes, as described in the relevant RFCs. Indeed they have. But that's orthogonal to the point I was making. stef: So, the

Re: I am *NOT* a believer in the democratic process.

But, more to the point, I am referring to the general reticence of non-IETF groups to use the IETF methods and processes in their own work related to developing standards for code for use on the Internet. However, I know of a few others that have adopted the IETF WG processes, and I

Re: I am *NOT* a believer in the democratic process.

COOK: good lord keith Surely stef's whole point is that the Area Directors, IESG, and IAB need only accept work that WAS good enough from THEIR own point of view. it sounds like you are saying that it simply is not possible to construct anything that could even merit IETF review

Re: I am *NOT* a believer in the democratic process.

COOK: good lord keith Surely stef's whole point is that the Area Directors, IESG, and IAB need only accept work that WAS good enough from THEIR own point of view. it sounds like you are saying that it simply is not possible to construct anything that could even merit IETF review

Re: I am *NOT* a believer in the democratic process.

Brian Lloyd wrote: [..] The protocol by WG committee approach espoused by the current IETF does not always produce good work. The concept of a Working Group Committee is revealing. gja

Going elsewhere (was: Re: I am *NOT* a believer...)

At 11:57 AM 6/25/2001, Jeffrey Altman wrote: There is no reason for a protocol whose authors plan to seek IETF backing to be developed outside the IETF. Unless some vocal people have told them that - their efforts are misguided - they're stupid and incapable of coming up with anything

Re: I am *NOT* a believer in the democratic process.

Does the IETF use the protocols it designs ? Do these incompetent Working Groups you refer to use IPv6 ? Jim Fleming http://www.unir.com Mars 128n 128e http://www.unir.com/images/architech.gif http://www.unir.com/images/address.gif http://www.unir.com/images/headers.gif

Re: Going elsewhere (was: Re: I am *NOT* a believer...)

Stephen McHenry wrote: [..] Soon, the people who were doing the good work went elsewhere where they could once again do good work, unencumbered by the meritocracy. An alternative interpretation is that the good people started being surrounded by less-good people who couldn't understand

Re: I am *NOT* a believer in the democratic process.

Well;-)... A really good discussion has occurred;-)... Gordon and Brian got it right in terms of my intentions. Let me clarify. Keith's fear of IESG being besieged with requests for IETF adoption of any work done outside the IETF without a WG Review is bogus as long as all work to be

Re: Comparison of ICAP and SOAP

In a nutshell: ICAP is a means of encapsulating HTTP inside of HTTP, to allow messages to be 'vectored' from an intermediary to an ICAP server for processing, and then sent on their way. It also defines where those messages may be vectored from the intermediary. I believe that its primary

Re: I am *NOT* a believer in the democratic process.

I think that the meta issues under discussion here will not be helped by diverting discussion to IETF evaluation of my specific examples. The work often involves some kind of controversial issues, which would take us way off target. See below... At 20:20 +0100 25/06/01, Lloyd Wood wrote: On

Connecting IPv6 Routing Domains Over the IPv4 Internet

http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/759/ipj_3-1/ipj_3-1_routing.html Connecting IPv6 Routing Domains Over the IPv4 Internet by Brian E. Carpenter, IBM iCAIR Keith Moore, University of Tennessee Bob Fink, Energy Sciences Network --- Was this done inside the

a solution to the complexity problem

http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/759/ipj_3-1/ipj_3-1_routing.html The 6to4 transition mechanism, Connection of IPv6 Domains via IPv4 Clouds without Explicit Tunnels [6] , provides a solution to the complexity problem of using manually configured tunnels by specifying a unique routing prefix for

Re: I am a strong believer in the democratic process.

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: However, I still have difficulties to understand the merit of having .ip6.int or .ip6.arpa or even .mickey-mouse for holding the reverse records. That must be a 100 % political decision with no merit at all. Well... we *DO* need to agree on what the root of the

Re: I am *NOT* a believer in the democratic process.

http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga-sys/Arc00/msg00136.html - Original Message - From: RJ Atkinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, June 25, 2001 7:48 PM Subject: Re: I am *NOT* a believer in the democratic process. It would be A Public Service if someone would

Re: Connecting IPv6 Routing Domains Over the IPv4 Internet

Yes it was. See the references at the end of the article you refer to. It clearly says that most of the documents were produced by the ngtrans working group of the IETF. Ole Ole J. Jacobsen Editor and Publisher The Internet Protocol Journal Office of the CTO, Cisco Systems Tel: +1

Re: Connecting IPv6 Routing Domains Over the IPv4 Internet

Are these the references you mean ? [0] Fink, R., IPv6-What and Where It Is, The Internet Protocol Journal, Volume 2, No. 1, March 1999. [1] IPng and IPv6 information, including formal specifications, can be found at: http://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng/html [2] The Case for IPv6, an Internet

Re: I am *NOT* a believer in the democratic process.

On Mon, 25 Jun 2001 12:01:03 PDT, Brian Lloyd said: threshing process. I see entirely too little threshing going on in the IETF these days. I think we worry to much that people will get their little feelers hurt. Send them my way. I'm renowned for my ability to tell almost anybody, in

Need to do architecture. ???

- Original Message - From: RJ Atkinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, June 25, 2001 7:48 PM Subject: Re: I am *NOT* a believer in the democratic process. It would be A Public Service if someone would setup a separate mailing list elsewhere for this thread so