Re: Soap Over Beep Question

> The beep/http binding does NOT specify that the recipient must send back a
> HTTP 200 response "before processing the contents of the envelope."
> 
> Thats the problem. In fact, the HTTP bindings don't speak about one-way
> messaging at all (which is too bad). I'm saying that the phrase under
> consideration requires the recipient to know the message pattern before it
> has any way of knowing it. Its a logical problem. At the very least I
> think the language in this RFC is premature as it eliminates the
> possibility of SOAP using a header to express the messaging pattern. The
> only way I see out of this is using a BEEP header (ie along the lines of a
> MIME header) which expresses the messaging pattern. That assumes the SOAP
> people go with expressing the MEP at the transport level.

perhaps, but perhaps not.

the fact that similar language doesn't appear in the http binding doesn't mean the problem isn't the same...

m/tr