Marshall T. Rose mrose+mtr.netnews@dbc.mtview.ca.us
Thu, 14 Jun 2001 15:59:22 -0700

roy - thanks.

> In general, if the service is available via multiple protocols and the
> naming syntax for those protocols will differ, then use a
> addition to the URI scheme (like the wcip.beep scheme above).  That is the
> normal way of doing it because the authority syntax is often dependent on
> the transport used (e.g., TCP ports and defaults).
> OTOH, if the syntax for naming will be the same, but the naming authority
> will differ based on the lower-layer protocol, then I would include beep
> within the authority component.  However, I have yet to see a good example
> of this in practice.

in most of the recent cases that i have seen, the only thing that differs is
how the data gets moved, e.g., going from soap/http to soap/beep, or
ice/http to ice/beep, etc. in both cases, you have a situation where the
path is going to be the same, and i have difficulty understanding whether
the "use beep" bit should be present in the scheme component or the
authority component. for example,


may very well be a valid thing for someone doing soap over http. so, what
should we be using for the soap over beep case? here are four possibilities,
i'm sure there are more...





ideally, i would prefer to avoid having to use a new scheme everytime
someone moves yet another service on top of beep.