Re: SNAP progress and request for comment
Chris Newman <cnewman <at> iplanet.com>
2001-12-09 23:16:23 GMT
--On Wednesday, December 5, 2001 8:39 +0200 "Shapira, Noam"
<Shapira_Noam <at> icomverse.com> wrote:
> 1. Bind the SNAP to HTTP. This was a very big issue that we closed (after
> putting it in the SNAP mailing list). There where 3 alternatives:
> - HTTP
> - BEEP
> - No binding (and leaving the decision to the implementers).
I strongly prefer BEEP because this is the sort of thing BEEP was designed
for. I am strongly opposed to an HTTP-only option, because HTTP is two or
three times the complexity of BEEP and provides less functionality when
abused as a protocol framework. In particular, HTTP has an inflexible
security model, complex and spotty support for persistant connections, and
complex proxy semantics. You'll have to write a lot of text to justify the
abuse of HTTP and there's a good chance the IESG will reject it, especially
given the experience with IPP. BEEP would be a slam-dunk.
> 2. Choose 2822 like as the format of the SNAP payload. Again, there where
> a few alternatives:
> - 2822 Like,
> - XML
> - In the HTTP query string (in the format of "attribute = value&)
> 2822 like format was chosen as it is more "friendly" to email servers.
> XML has a great deal of supporters as well so it was hard to decide. I
> would be happy to get comments.
I'd lean slightly towards XML, since I think all email servers will
eventually end up with an XML parser for one reason or another, but there's