Re: SOAP and OCP

Alex Rousskov wrote:

> Instead, I would suggest that the WG encourages Abbie to write a "how
> to use SOAP as an OPES callout protocol" draft, supplying OPES
> implementors with an explicit OCP alternative. All WG documents
> (including those documenting tracing and bypass mechanisms) will have
> to make sure that no specific callout protocol is assumed in a general
> OPES context.
>
> Any objections or further comments?
Having a document discussing the usage of SOAP as the OPES callout 
protocol is fine (indeed, I believe there was a now expired, 
individual ID about this a while ago). However, I'd like to hit the 
brake on going down the path of specifying multiple OPES callout 
protocols.
Let's focus on getting "an" OCP - with the appropriate transport 
binding(s) and application binding(s) - done. We're chartered to 
specify a callout protocol, and not a suite of possible callout 
protocols. There might be multiple alternatives, and we'll have to 
decide which is the best one.
If there's a real need for having multiple callout protocols, let's 
have a discussion and see whether there's WG consensus to do so. 
Otherwise, I'd suggest we focus on getting a single callout protocol 
done right, and base the companion documents around this protocol.
Leaving too many options seems like a simple way to overcome 
controversy and to make everybody happy, but it might not always be 
the best choice in technical design.
-Markus