[BXXPwg] Updated strawman for BEEP protocol URIs

Dan Kohn dan@dankohn.com
Mon, 18 Jun 2001 22:09:34 -0700


If the URL scheme were just "beep", the application would connect and
see, I can do IMXP or syslog-raw.  This would be fixed if there were a
profile field in the beep URL scheme name, but that's very ugly because:

A) who wants a URL in a URL, and
B) it incorrectly assumes that there is a single BEEP client to be
invoked, when in fact that are probably multiple applications, each of
which speaks a certain BEEP profile.

My proposal addresses this by mapping one-to-one between BEEP profiles
and URL scheme names so that the right application is launched for any
given profile.  This additionally enables a listener to support multiple
profiles on the same port without confusion, since the initiator knows
which profile it should use from the scheme name.

I don't know how to more clearly answer your question.  Could I suggest
you go back to my proposal from a few messages ago and, if you have an
issue with it, suggest an alternative?

		- dan
--
Dan Kohn <mailto:dan@dankohn.com>
<http://www.dankohn.com/>  <tel:+1-650-327-2600>

-----Original Message-----
From: Gabe Wachob [mailto:gwachob@wachob.com] 
Sent: Monday, June 18, 2001 22:00
To: Dan Kohn
Cc: bxxpwg@lists.invisibleworlds.com; 'Roy Fielding'
Subject: RE: [BXXPwg] Updated strawman for BEEP protocol URIs


I'm having a hard time understaning in what situation an application
would
think "hmm, I have this endpoint, should I do IMXP or syslog-raw?" I
mean,
even if it did both of those functions, wouldn't it know by context (eg
different fill-in fields in some config screen) that the particular
endpoint can be used for either profile?

The application is not making the decision - "here's an endpoint, whats
something interesting I can do with it". Rather, the logic is "I want to
do profile X, do I have an endpoint with which to do profile X"...

	-Gabe


On Mon, 18 Jun 2001, Dan Kohn wrote:

> The initiator needs the URL, but the unique scheme names per profile
are
> required if the listener is offering multiple profiles on the same
port.
>
> A BEEP initiator is told by a URL to begin a session.  The listener
> supports two profiles on the same port, IMXP and raw syslog.  A
> hypothetical "beep" URL would not be able to specify which profile
> should be selected.  But, an imxp or syslog.raw URL scheme name is by
> definition bound to a single BEEP profile, so there is no confusion
over
> which profile to select.
>
> 		- dan
> --
> Dan Kohn <mailto:dan@dankohn.com>
> <http://www.dankohn.com/>  <tel:+1-650-327-2600>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gabe Wachob [mailto:gwachob@wachob.com]
> Sent: Monday, June 18, 2001 21:48
> To: Dan Kohn
> Cc: bxxpwg@lists.invisibleworlds.com; Roy Fielding
> Subject: Re: [BXXPwg] Updated strawman for BEEP protocol URIs
>
>
>
> On Mon, 18 Jun 2001, Dan Kohn wrote:
>
> > The counterexample for Gabe is a beep listener that, for whatever
> > reason, supports profiles for two or more services on the same port.
> > Which is why I'd like to suggest the following (updated) proposal:
>
> Wait, why would a listener need a URL format? Only initiators are
going
> to
> need this URL containing a profile.. Only an initiator is going to
have
> to
> make a decision about *why* they are entering into a BEEP connection
..
>
> In other words, in BEEP, a "location" is not visible within the
protocol
> -
> if you talk to a BEEP endpoint (listener), that listener basically
only
> cares really that you connected, and the negotiation for what profile
to
> "execute" is part of the greeting and channel creation - no URL
> neccesary.
>
> 	-Gabe
>
>