[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

Re: governmental recommendation(non-US) that rpc(RFC1831) sho

• To: chiusano_joseph@b..., rexb@s...
• Subject: Re: governmental recommendation(non-US) that rpc(RFC1831) should be abandoned
• From: bry@i...
• Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 17:47:18 +0200
• Cc: xml-dev@l...
• In-reply-to: <40DAB41B.FE06AAA3@b...>
• References: <1088067645.40da983d49ba7@h...> <40DAB41B.FE06AAA3@b...>
• User-agent: Internet Messaging Program (IMP) 3.2.2

> 
> Could you please elaborate on your specific usage of "RPC" here?
what was meant specifically was the group of standards  RPC (RFC1831), RPC
binding (RFC 1833) and XDR (RFC1832). although I only referred to RPC (RFC1831)
in the subject of the message. Sorry for lack of clarity. 


> and that SOAP-based Webservices are accepted - using SOAP
> > 1.1, and WSDL 1.1?
> > 
> > Note that HTTP 1.1 is also accepted, 
> 
> Do you mean SOAP over HTTP? HTML and HTTP? etc.

This is a rather wide-reaching vague document, so when it marks HTTP 1.1 as
accepted it refers only to HTTP 1.1 and no attendant technologies. To be
cynical, this is all
at the bureaucrat level it seems to me; a list of usable buzz-words. 

> 
> and data integration with xml is
> > recomended, so I suppose REST is slightly higher than SOAP. 
>
> What would "higher" mean here? You are referring to a stack?

when I referred to the stack I was referring to the WS-I basic Web Services
stack, which following the vagueness of the document is accepted. 
The higher is in referrence to the valuations they gave Web Services (accepted,
which if we were to give it a numerical value would be 2 out of 3), HTTP has
the
same valuation, but xml has a valuation that would be equivalent to 3 out of 3.
Thus Rest Web Services, identified as Xml over http would have a higher ranking
than Soap Web Services, if one wanted to look at it from that rather funny
viewpoint which the document assuredly does not. 


The reason for my posting on the subject and asking for a quick survey of
responses, was that we were having a meeting on this document, which will be
going into rewrite and I was hoping to get some opinions on a section that
seemed particularly wrong-headed to me, but which my valuation of was based
mainly on instinctual dislike. 
Luckily there was enough argumentation on the side of doing things over not to
need arguments outside of the ones I was solid on. 
The document itself isn't in english, although the next version should be, so
it
wouldn't make much sense to send a link to it. 
 
Rex asked for a rationale, the rationale as far as I understand it had to do
with a European initiative for interoperability etc. etc. undertaken a while
back, and the document was an initial response to that initiative, to allow
various agencies, organizations, what have you, to look through the document and
be able to figure out what standards they should choose products for in order to
be "interoperable"

Allow me to say that I had nothing to do with this until a few weeks ago. And
nothing especially concrete to do with it until today. When I had the first
meeting on what heretofore I had only read. 

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: governmental recommendation(non-US) thatrpc(RFC1831) should be abandoned
    • From: Rex Brooks <rexb@s...>

• References:
  • governmental recommendation(non-US) that rpc(RFC1831) should be abandoned
    • From: bry@i...
  • Re: governmental recommendation(non-US) that rpc(RFC1831) should be abandoned
    • From: "Chiusano Joseph" <chiusano_joseph@b...>

• Prev by Date: RE: XML Technologies: Progress via Simplification or Complexification?
• Next by Date: Re: XML Technologies: Progress via Simplification or Co mplexification?
• Previous by thread: Re: governmental recommendation(non-US) that rpc(RFC1831) should be abandoned
• Next by thread: Re: governmental recommendation(non-US) thatrpc(RFC1831) should be abandoned
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread