For interested folks.
From: Valdis(_dot_)Kletnieks(_at_)vt(_dot_)edu
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot(_at_)akamai(_dot_)com>
cc: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: Comparison of ICAP and SOAP
X-URL: http://black-ice.cc.vt.edu/~valdis/
X-Face-Viewer: See ftp://cs.indiana.edu/pub/faces/index.html to decode
picture
X-Face:
34C9$Ewd2zeX+\!i1BA\j{ex+$/V'JBG#;3_noWWYPa"|,I#`R"{n(_at_)w>#:{)FXyiAS7(8t(
^*w5O*!8O9YTe[r{e%7(yVRb|qxsRYw`7J!`AM}m_SHaj}f8eb(_at_)d^L>BrX7iO[<!v4-0bVIpaxF#-)
%9#a9h6JXI|T|8o6t\V?kGl]Q!1V]GtNliUtz:3},0"hkPeBuu%E,j(:\iOX-P,t7lRR#
Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2001 23:37:02 -0400
X-Loop: ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
(trimming back the cc: list for sanity)
On Tue, 10 Jul 2001 16:26:01 PDT, Mark Nottingham said:
> Many involved in the development of SOAP acknowledge the limitations
> of using HTTP. However, SOAP is being designed to allow multiple
> bindings underneath, not just HTTP; HTTP is only the chartered
> transport for the 'core' WG. Most anticipate that HTTP will only be
> used for relatively simple applications, while more business critical
> uses will be transported across things like BEEP or DIME-over-TCP.
The cynics and realists among us read this as:
"SOAP over HTTP is the only chartered transport, so an RFC will be
produced for that, complete with all the HTTP-implied warts. This
will be implemented by several large software companies and become
the de facto standard. A few people will create non-interoperable
versions of BEEP or DIME encapsulation, but these will die off
because they're not standard, and too many big software houses will
botch SOAP-over-HTTP because they can't get HTTP right to have even
a snowball's chance in Beelzebub's backyard for them to ever dream
of doing a BEEP or DIME versions".
/Valdis
Michael W. Condry
Director, Network Edge Technology