Subject: Re: Last Call: Using SOAP in BEEP to Proposed Standard

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2001 15:18:17 -0700

Brian,

>So, we continue to have all the criticisms of this proposal focus on 
>everything except the technical details of this proposal.  How constructive.

I apologize for the closing outburst.  I hit send too quickly and did not 
proofread my note carefully enough.  Being frustrated is not an excuse for 
being rude.

d/

----------
Dave Crocker  <mailto:[email-masked]>
Brandenburg InternetWorking  <http://www.brandenburg.com>
tel +1.408.246.8253;  fax +1.408.273.6464

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2001 10:35:17 -0500

Dave,

No need to apologise. We were all on edge yesterday. But you didn't respond 
to my comment that this issue *is* relevant to the Last Call precisely because 
there was no discussion whether the work should have been chartered in the first 
place, if it had been a WG submission.

Of the layerings I mentioned, SOAP over HTTP is of course deployed and SOAP
over HTTPR is documented and is very likely to pop up in the IETF.
So we do already have 3 solutions and this does merit some discussion.

   Brian

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2001 00:18:46 -0700

At 08:35 AM 9/12/2001, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>But you didn't respond to my comment that this issue *is* relevant to the 
>Last Call precisely because there was no discussion whether the work 
>should have been chartered in the first place, if it had been a WG submission.

While we are at it, we need to review the decision to permit specification 
of IP over more than one medium.

It is architecturally the same issue.

d/

ps.  Your previous comment about IETF tendency to restrict options 
neglected to note that that is WITHIN a particular protocol.  The IETF has 
NOT had a track record of restricting convergence choices.

----------

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2001 09:49:18 -0500

> It is architecturally the same issue.

No it isn't. Didn't you see the hourglass presentation in the London plenary? 
The issue is how much bloat *we* endorse at the upper levels; we can't control 
the bloat at the hardware level. 

But I agree that we should be selective at all levels [digression on IP over
Bluetooth deleted]. And I'm being very careful not to suggest SOAP/BEEP
is in any way a bad thing to do; we just need to decide consciously whether
to endorse it.
> NOT had a track record of restricting convergence choices.

True. And we have a lot of unused RFCs to prove it. Each of them complicates
implementors' dsecision processes

   Brian

My own PS: I've made my point for the IESG to consider, you have made your rebuttal.
I think we can drop it.