Re: IETF draft on appropriate uses of HTTP

["Brunner, Eric" <EBrunner@Engage.com>]

There is little connection between the subject line of this thread, which
references Keith's -00 draft (and a multi-year discussion within the IAB on
"fog" (damage to the stateless end-2-end catanet model) introduced by
network address translators and firewalls, and the (argued) position within
the IETF Applications Directorate that http is NOT good-for-everything (tm)
simply because it has the (temporary) property of being generally permitted
by NAT/Firewall operators, and any number of discussions (technical merits,
non-technical merits, etc.) on SOAP, or XML, or any *ML for that matter.

I suggest this list's members use appropriate threading:
	1. on the W3C landing of a member submission, the cannonical W3C-ish
members-only and/or public discussion,
	2. on the functional specificiation mapping between SOAP-CURRENT and
ebXML-CURRENT,
	3. on Keith's -00 draft,

Oblig technical comment on the original rational for forwarding Simon
St.Laurent's mail (Henry Lowe):
	Q: "I think it supports the case for the use of MIME for ebXML as
the TPR WG is doing."
	A: Yes.

Eric Brunner				
brunner@engage.com