As someone who is still coming up to speed on SOAP (would a SOAP server
be called a dispenser?) I would appreciate the authors and AD responding
to Mark. Marshall, can you comment on this point? Thus far this is the
only objection that raised my eyebrows.
ok.
Speaking for myself only, I agree; I find the timing of this curious,
at the very least. The authors of SOAP submitted 1.1 to the W3C
specifically to work towards what is now SOAP 1.2, which is rapidly
(at least on the time scale of these things) approaching completion.
there's nothing curious about the timing.
the original draft came out a little over three months ago. there was a fair
amount of discussion on both the beep and xmlp working group mailing lists.
the draft was revised a few times based on that.
after a quiet period of a couple of weeks, i asked the ADs to have it
published. unfortunately, that was right before the london ietf, which
introduced a lot of delay. then there was more management coordination.
then the last call came out.
Putting a binding based on 1.1 on the IETF Standards track while 1.2
is being finalized seems like poor coordination at best.
i guess it depends on what you mean by the term "finalized".
the I-D in question works with 1.1 and 1.2 and, as explained previously,
contains an extensibility mechanism to deal with 1.x and perhaps even 2.y...
/mtr