Subject: RE: Comparison of ICAP and SOAP

From: "Carr, Wayne" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2001 10:30:27 -0700

below...

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lloyd Wood [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2001 10:23 AM
> To: Carr, Wayne
> Cc: 'Mark Nottingham'; Brian E Carpenter; Keith Moore; 
> Tomlinson, Gary;
> Randy Bush; John Martin; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: Comparison of ICAP and SOAP
> 
> 
> On Tue, 10 Jul 2001, Carr, Wayne wrote:
> 
> > SOAP intermediaries don't have to be explicitly targetted.  
> Anything along
> > the way could read and act on a soap message.  
> 
> There's SOAP's first problem.

An intermediary being able to see a soap message isn't related to soap
itself.  If the soap binding used is http, then an intermediary that can see
that could see the soap message as it could any other content.  If a soap
message should not be changed, it can be signed.  If it shouldn't be read,
it can be encrypted.  SOAP mechanisms for both are being developed.

> 
> L.
> 
> <[email-masked]>PGP<http://www.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/L.Wood/>
> 
>

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2001 19:19:04 -0400

seems like SOAP's first problem is layering on top of HTTP .

once you make that choice, it's downhill from there.

---

From: Mark Nottingham <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2001 16:26:01 -0700

My, that's pithy.

Many involved in the development of SOAP acknowledge the limitations
of using HTTP. However, SOAP is being designed to allow multiple
bindings underneath, not just HTTP; HTTP is only the chartered
transport for the 'core' WG. Most anticipate that HTTP will only be
used for relatively simple applications, while more business critical
uses will be transported across things like BEEP or DIME-over-TCP.

-- 
Mark Nottingham, Research Scientist
Akamai Technologies (San Mateo, CA USA)

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2001 16:40:46 -0700

> seems like SOAP's first problem is layering on top of HTTP .

not a necessity, just blinders of that community, a limitation derived from
understanding only layer seven.

randy

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2001 23:37:02 -0400

(trimming back the cc: list for sanity)

> uses will be transported across things like BEEP or DIME-over-TCP.

The cynics and realists among us read this as:

"SOAP over HTTP is the only chartered transport, so an RFC will be
produced for that, complete with all the HTTP-implied warts.  This
will be implemented by several large software companies and become
the de facto standard.  A few people will create non-interoperable
versions of BEEP or DIME encapsulation, but these will die off
because they're not standard, and too many big software houses will
botch SOAP-over-HTTP because they can't get HTTP right to have even
a snowball's chance in Beelzebub's backyard for them to ever dream
of doing a BEEP or DIME versions".

/Valdis

---

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2001 22:52:42 -0600

> of doing a BEEP or DIME versions".

I hope you will be wrong.

FYI, there is a draft for SOAP over BEEP already:
http://search.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-etal-beep-soap-03.txt

__________________________________________
Alexey Melnikov
R & D, ACI Worldwide (formerly MessagingDirect Ltd.)
phone 780.424.4922 x357

I speak for myself only, not for my employer.
__________________________________________