Subject: PaceProtocolDesignTeam

From: Robert Sayre <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 28 Aug 2004 16:38:21 -0400

The last reading of consensus we had was here:

http://www.imc.org/atom-syntax/mail-archive/msg07601.html

The consensus was "overwhelming", not "rough", and there is a *very 
large* amount of working code to support it.

This Pace was drafted to reflect the co-chairs' estimation of consensus.

I ask that the co-chairs point to the official record of this WG (this 
list), and identify messages that advocate something other than 
REST-with-4-verbs as the primary interface for the Atom protocol. I 
would also like to know why these messages constitute a body of evidence 
sufficient to move consensus from "overwhelming", right past "rough", to 
"none."

Robert Sayre

---

From: Tim Bray <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 28 Aug 2004 15:31:58 -0700

> http://www.imc.org/atom-syntax/mail-archive/msg07601.html

Uh, when I said REST, I actually meant "HTTP transmission of naked Atom 
markup with no SOAP or any other wrapper".  My personal opinion is that 
this qualifies as REST whether or not you're doing it with 
GET/POST/PUT/DELETE or just GET/POST, and thus I did not feel that 
saying "REST" implied four verbs.  I have now been painfully educated 
that there are many who feel that the label REST cannot be applied 
unless you support PUT and DELETE, so for greater clarity I would now 
rephrase that statement as:

  I am pretty sure that there is *overwhelming* community demand for a 
protocol based
  on the exchange of Atom documents over HTTP.

>  there is a *very large* amount of working code to support it.

Well, one reason for that is that there are some interesting platforms 
that can't implement the current proposal because they can't manage 
four verbs.  Note: the WG may decide this is OK, but hasn't yet.

> would also like to know why these messages constitute a body of 
> evidence sufficient to move consensus from "overwhelming", right past 
> "rough", to "none."

First of all, I note that PaceAtomActionHeader is still in the 
"to-consider" list.

 From the List

Janne Jalkanen:
http://www.imc.org/atom-syntax/mail-archive/msg07614.html
http://www.imc.org/atom-syntax/mail-archive/msg07611.html
http://www.imc.org/atom-syntax/mail-archive/msg07608.html

Paul Hoffman:
http://www.imc.org/atom-syntax/mail-archive/msg07575.html

Graham Parks:
http://www.imc.org/atom-syntax/mail-archive/msg07566.html

Sam Ruby:
http://www.imc.org/atom-syntax/mail-archive/msg07549.html

Me:
http://www.imc.org/atom-syntax/mail-archive/msg07474.html

Russ Beattie:
http://www.imc.org/atom-syntax/mail-archive/msg07316.html

Peter Mortier
http://www.imc.org/atom-syntax/mail-archive/msg07187.html

No, I don't think the WG has consensus on this matter. -Tim

---

From: Robert Sayre <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 28 Aug 2004 19:04:33 -0400

Tim Bray wrote:

> markup with no SOAP or any other wrapper".  

I apologize for mischaracterizing your views.

> My personal opinion is that 
> saying "REST" implied four verbs.

> protocol based on the exchange of Atom documents over HTTP.
> 
> that can't implement the current proposal because they can't manage four 
> verbs.  

This is not true. Name one platform that can't implement the Atom 
Protocol as of draft-gregorio-09 (counting the SHOULD-level SOAP fallback).

> Note: the WG may decide this is OK, but hasn't yet.
> 

I note that PaceAtomActionHeader positions itself as a fallback mechanism.

Though I recognize the authority of the co-chairs, I see no rationale or 
support for positioning either SOAP or PaceAtomActionHeader as the 
primary mechanism for the protocol.

There is a disagreement about the headers/verbs/http issue, but there is 
next to zero support for SOAP as the primary. This should be removed 
from  consideration in the Pace.

As for the email list, I feel the co-chairs have mostly cited arguments 
around a "fallback" mechanism. Which one of them calls for PUT/DELETE to 
be abandoned? I'll also note that Peter Mortier's email seems to 
advocate my own POV. Binary POST, SOAP to edit (PUT/DELETE):

"I would like to see a primary mechanism, using POST to upload binary
objects to an Atom enabled server. This is the most common use case for 
a mobile user.

When subsequent editing/replacing of an existing binary object
requires a SOAP envelope, base64 encoding and gzipping it all on MIDP 
then I could possibly be OK with that too, since like you say this is 
indeed an infrequent action."

Robert Sayre