Markus,
The plan for now is to go ahead and get a transport for OCP that best fits.
SOAP addresses some issues and is good in some situations.
We will readdress later.
Abbie
-----Original Message-----
From: Markus Hofmann [mailto:markus(_at_)mhof(_dot_)com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2003 7:10 PM
To: ietf-openproxy(_at_)imc(_dot_)org
Subject: 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