RE: IETF draft on appropriate uses of HTTP

[Kevin Perkins <perkins@ozy.dec.com>]

Title: RE: IETF draft on appropriate uses of HTTP

I object to marketing hype as well...

If IBM is such a reputable vendor then we should take notice of what they are doing?  IBM and Lotus are co-authors of SOAP 1.1.  In addition, they are co-contributing it to W3C (along with ourselves, HP, SAP, Iona, et al).  IBM has released an implementation, SOAP for Java, on their alphaworks www site.

FYI... we are supporting the submission of SOAP to W3C because we believe that is the correct standards group for standardising infrastructural aspects of XML (including routing, transport and packaging).  I would like to see the ebxml efforts in this area also submitted as part of creating a working group with w3c to create ONE standard.

Regards Kevin

Kevin Perkins          
Technical Architect                             Compaq Computer Corp.  
E-mail:  mailto:kevin.perkins@compaq.com        Burnet Place   
Phone:   +61-7-5575 0156                        Research Park  
Fax:     +61-7-5575 0100                        Bond University  QLD  4229     
Mobile:  +61-4114-32123                 Australia      

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Todd Boyle [mailto:tboyle@rosehill.net]
> Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2000 6:50 AM
> To: Ebxml
> Subject: RE: IETF draft on appropriate uses of HTTP
>
>
> David E. Cleary agreed with David Boreham,
>
> >> > I want to make it very clear that Sun has NOT said that
> we will support
> >> > SOAP. We have said that if it gets endorsed by ebXML,
> IETF, W3C, or
> some
> >> > other established consensus body, then we will support SOAP.
> >>
> >> Double speak worthy of Microsoft !
> >>
> >> Decoded, this means that Sun does not want to support
> SOAP, correct ?
> >
> >Imagine if everybody said that they wouldn't support Java
> until it was
> >endoresed by ISO, ECMA, ....
>
> I object to the hype and marketing this past few days in
> favor of SOAP.
> If the ebXML list is going to serve as a medium for these kinds of
> marketing messages then it should setup an advocacy list where all
> the other vendors and religions can post our opinions too.
>
> Vendors and developers worldwide, especially reputable vendors like
> IBM, Sun are not going to get down and wrestle in the mud by
> criticising
> Microsoft or SOAP.  Following is my opinion.
>
> The problem with SOAP is that it was designed and developed
> at Microsoft,
> over an extended period in which the implications of every
> aspect of SOAP
> were carefully considered by Microsoft in its ongoing development of
> XML platforms such as MSIE5 and BizTalk server.  This fairly
> well ensures
> the following:
>
>  1.  whatever capabilities exist in Microsoft platforms, SOAP
> will support
>      them marvelously.
>
>  2.  whatever features that could have exist within SOAP,
> which might have
>      similarly maximized the efficiency or fit for other
> vendors platforms,
>      are not necessarily present, and I am being polite, here.
>
>  3.  whatever features exist in SOAP, Microsoft's numerous, wellpaid
> engineers
>      are already up to speed, have a 1 year head start, and developing
>      applications with them.
>
> Microsoft already has overwhelming economic power in the marketplace.
> Why would any vendor want to get involved with SOAP?  and go
> directly into
> competition with Microsoft?
>
> Other technologies and other vendors and participants are
> fully capable
> of providing solutions without SOAP.  Similarly, if ebXML
> adopts SOAP, the
> result would be a relative weakening of other participants
> intellectual
> contributions.   You can't have it both ways.  If you rollout
> solutions
> that run on Microsoft platforms better, sooner, faster, then
> ebXML will
> not be a level playing field for other vendors and they will
> not invest
> money and mindshare into it.
>
> Now, Dick Brooks has said a couple of times, "I believe the
> ebXML MR&T group
> needs to take a serious look at SOAP to determine if there is
> potential
> overlap and/or synergy." and posted comments by Developer Division at
> Microsoft, etc.
>
> Bob Salita said, april 28th re Chicago SOAP BOF meeting,
>
> "The meeting was called because Kent Sharkey, Technical Evangelist at
> Microsoft, asked to make a presentation about SOAP. We hoped to
> receive some software bits although this was not the case.
>
> Prior to his arrival, we polled our group's opinions. 92% felt the
> proposed breakup of Microsoft into two parts (OS vs. Office) was a
> really bad idea. 92% felt Microsoft's appeal would prevail thus
> gutting Judge Jackson's decision."
>
>
> No SOAP.  Make it plain XML.
>
> Todd Boyle Kirkland WA   www.gldialtone.com
>