Marshall T. Rose mrose+mtr.netnews@dbc.mtview.ca.us
Wed, 13 Jun 2001 19:23:00 -0700

hi. i don't think it makes sense to talk about a BEEP URL, because BEEP, by
itself, isn't a protocol like HTTP or FTP or SMTP is.

i suspect there is some general "issue" in the URL architecture that needs
to get resolved before we will find a satisfactory answer to the question.
for example, in the case of wsdl or soap or ipp or whatever, i can always


but how is anyone to know that the http server there is really a front-end
to wsdl or soap or ipp? my point is that there's something semantic going on
here that isn't visible in the URL, instead you somehow have to know from
context that if you see a URL inside a certain kind of message then there's
an expectation that a special kind of process is sitting at the http server.

i noted that the wcip draft says this about naming:

    wcip://" domain-name ":" port "/" channel-name "?proto=beep"

but you could just as easily have "?proto=http" tacked onto the end.

i'm not suggesting that this is the "right way" but it does bear some


----- Original Message -----
From: "Gabe Wachob" <gwachob@wachob.com>
To: "Marshall T. Rose" <mrose+mtr.netnews@dbc.mtview.ca.us>
Cc: <bxxpwg@invisible.net>; "Eamon O'Tuathail"
Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2001 17:18
Subject: Re: [BXXPwg] SOAP over BEEP

> One question this brings up w/r/t SOAP is that of URLs - is there such a
> thing as a BEEP endpoint URL? The reason I ask is that WSDL (the web
> services description language) tries to describe a SOAP endpoint with
> (among other attributes) an HTTP URL. So, it seems that if SOAP/BEEP is
> deployed, the WSDL folks are going to want to be able to specify a BEEP
> URL similarly to the way they specify a HTTP URL:
> from http://msdn.microsoft.com/xml/general/wsdl.asp (example 6):
>  <service name="service1">
>         <port name="port1" binding="tns:b1">
>            <http:address location="http://example.com/"/>
>         </port>
>         <port name="port2" binding="tns:b2">
>            <http:address location="http://example.com/"/>
>         </port>
>         <port name="port3" binding="tns:b3">
>              <http:address location="http://example.com/"/>
>         </port>
>     </service>
>  <binding name="b1" type="pt1">
>         <http:binding verb="GET"/>
>         <operation name="o1">
>            <http:operation location="o1/A(part1)B(part2)/(part3)"/>
>            <input>
>                <http:urlReplacement/>
>            </input>
>            <output>
>                <mime:content type="image/gif"/>
>                <mime:content type="image/jpeg"/>
>            </output>
>         </operation>
>     </binding>
> Now, of course, this is WSDL and not SOAP or BEEP, so we aren't here to
> solve the WSDL description of a BEEP endpoint -- but is now an
> appropriate time to discuss URLs in the context of BEEP/TCP ? Or are URLs
> not really appropriate?
> -Gabe
> On Tue, 12 Jun 2001, Marshall T. Rose wrote:
> > Your comments are solicited.
> >
> > TXT version at
> > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-etal-beep-soap-00.txt
> >
> > HTML version at http://beepcore.org/beepcore/beep-soap.jsp
> >
> > /mtr
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> BXXPwg mailing list
> BXXPwg@lists.invisible.net
> http://lists.invisible.net/mailman/listinfo/bxxpwg