On Tue, 11 Mar 2003, Markus Hofmann wrote:
General question now is whethr we feel that coupling the transport
protocol for the callout to the application message protocol is
flexible enough, or whether we need more flexibility?
For example, is it OK to assume that whenever the application
message protocol is A, that the transport protocol for the callout
is B. Or is there a case to make that for the same message protocol
A, we sometimes need to use transport protocol B for the callout,
and sometimes transport protocol C (substitute A, B, and C with your
favorite protocols :) If so, how is this achieved without protocol
negotiation?
I was not on that conference call so I may be missing some important
caveats. Said that, it seems to me that we should not care about the
ways transport protocols are selected as long as we do not have to
support true negotiations. In most cases, protocol selection can be
handled by static configurations (with rules if needed), and should be
out of our current scope.
No need to limit the selection/matching rules; just prohibit
in-protocol negotiations. Let implementations decide what is the right
protocol selection method is.
$0.02,
Alex.