Re: Messaging Service Layer

Mark Baker <[email protected]>
Newsgroups gmane.comp.web.services.ws-arch
Message-ID <[email protected]>
On Tue, Feb 18, 2003 at 12:19:20PM -0500, Champion, Mike wrote:
> I'm just not seeing this thread going anywhere.  Mark and Walden seem to
> want some genuflection to the non-normative (either in W3C or IETF) 7-layer
> model.  Others say that this is pointless because everything we're talking
> about is essentially at the "application" layer.  The counter-argument that
> one doesn't NEED HTTP, SMTP, etc to do web serivces message "transport"
> because it could go over TCP/IP directly misses the point that what we're
> doing is required to be protocol-neutral.  

Protocol independance/neutrality can be achieved in two ways; by
treating application protocols as a transport protocol (the preferred
approach, apparently), or by extending application protocols (the
"chameleon" approach).  Failing to make this distinction, while using
the existence of the requirement to justify ignoring a proven model that
may help to explain it, is a nasty catch-22.

I am in the process of writing a short essay on the subject.  I'll let
the group know when I'm done.

> How about if Mark or Walden just submit an issue against the next public
> draft of the WSA document so that we make sure that we say SOMETHING about
> it (suggest wording, even) so we can get on with more pressing topics?

Sure, sounds good.  I'll do that.  But I'm not going to suggest
text, because I believe that any wording that defends such a
position is prima facie incorrect.

MB
-- 
Mark Baker.   Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.        http://www.markbaker.ca
Web architecture consulting, technical reports, evaluation & analysis
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.