Subject: RE: [BXXPwg] SOAP over BEEP

From: Bill Mills <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 13:50:02 -0700

I was in fact thinking of a super-handler type thing.  My thought was that 
it would be worthwhile to reduce the required number of handlers, especially

when we have the addidtional vector of transport type (tcp/sctp/...).

-bill

-----Original Message-----
From: Eamon O'Tuathail [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Monday, June 18, 2001 1:22 PM
To: Bill Mills; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [BXXPwg] SOAP over BEEP

Bill,

RFC 2396 - section 3, first paragraph - The scheme name is up to the first
':'. Most pieces of deployed software only look at that and then branch off
to a handler - and these handlers are usually configurable based on the
scheme name. They will give you the <scheme specific part> (from just past
to the first ':' to the end).  If you plan to use a ':' separated scheme
name, then you will need some sort of super-handler that is smart enough to
work out the second part of the scheme name. If you use the '.' notation
(e.g. "soap.beep"), then you can directly activate a suitable soap handler.

>> does this indicate that the algorithms
>> currently in use do not conform to the RFC per se?

Which algorithms are you talking about?
To which specs / drafts do they belong?

Eamon

_______________________________________________
BXXPwg mailing list
[email-masked]
http://lists.invisible.net/mailman/listinfo/bxxpwg

_______________________________________________
BXXPwg mailing list
[email-masked]
http://lists.invisible.net/mailman/listinfo/bxxpwg

---

From: "Eamon O'Tuathail" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 22:02:41 +0100

The idea of a superhandler would be neat, but ...

from a practical viewpoint, having multiple ':' could well trip up
many generic implementations, and

>From a standards perspective, RFC 2396, states:
   "Many URI include components consisting of or delimited by, certain
   special characters.  These characters are called "reserved", since
   their usage within the URI component is limited to their reserved
   purpose.  If the data for a URI component would conflict with the
   reserved purpose, then the conflicting data must be escaped before
   forming the URI."

      reserved    = ";" | "/" | "?" | ":" | "@" | "&" | "=" | "+" |
                    "$" | ","

and later:
   "Within the authority component, the characters ";", ":",
   "@", "?", and "/" are reserved."

You don't have to follow the "scheme>://<authority><path>?<query>"
approach - but the vast majority of implementations do.

   "The URI syntax does not require that the scheme-specific-part have
   any general structure or set of semantics which is common among all
   URI."

The BNF in RFC 2396, appendix A does permit use of ':' in the opaque_part.

The more you stray from what people expect, the more likely things will be
broken.

Eamon