WIMS> FW: [Isms] BEEP as a transport for X

WIMS> FW: [Isms] BEEP as a transport for X

WIMS> FW: [Isms] BEEP as a transport for X

McDonald, Ira imcdonald at sharplabs.com
Tue Aug 16 13:47:34 EDT 2005


Below are interesting comments from IETF people about why BEEP
is nowhere near 'ready for prime time'.  I pass these along (as
Bert Wijnen did) because people should understand that there are
NOT high quality libraries widely deployed for BEEP.

For WIMS and other WS-protocols developed by the PWG, 'SOAP over
something' (but not SOAP over BEEP) remains the best choice - that
is, W3C SOAP/1.2.  Developing anything new over non-interoperable
SOAP/1.1 is a waste of time and money.

- Ira

Ira McDonald (Musician / Software Architect)
Blue Roof Music / High North Inc
PO Box 221  Grand Marais, MI  49839
phone: +1-906-494-2434
email: imcdonald at sharplabs.com

-----Original Message-----
From: isms-bounces at lists.ietf.org [mailto:isms-bounces at lists.ietf.org]On
Behalf Of Wijnen, Bert (Bert)
Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2005 10:38 AM
To: isms at ietf.org
Subject: [Isms] BEEP as a transport for X

I saw some side conversations and polled for additional info.
I got the following information on BEEP which I think will
be good to know for this WG. Specifically, because (as far
I have always understood the WG charter) the WG is trying
to find a solution to allow SNMPv3 to be much better 
intergrated with (existing) operational security 

-------------- fowarding with permission

>From Andy Newton:
>> The problem we faced in the CRISP working group is that BEEP
>> was just too much for the simple request/response protocol
>> we have developed.
>> While there are new libraries now from both IBM and Apple
>> which I have not had the chance to use, it seemed that most
>> of the libraries we found were incomplete, out-and-out
>> vaporware, or incredibly frustrating to understand from
>> the API perspective.
>> Now, if the question is "which is easier to implement,
>> BEEP or SSH?" I'll bet that BEEP is the answer.
>> But there are some pretty rock-solid implementations of
>> SSH out there that surpass anything I have seen with BEEP.
>> I like BEEP.  I think it is a cool design.  But the simple
>> fact is that if your implementers want something easy to
>> build or something easy to re-use, BEEP is not that (yet).
>> -andy

>From LEslie Daigle:

>>>>> Subject: Arch....? Re: Notifications in LEMONADE
>>>>> So, BEEP is an interesting beast.
>>>>> *Architecturally*, it is the right direction.  But, it is falling
>>>>> down in reality because a) Marshall's attention moved on, and
>>>>> b) the implementations are unwieldy.  That is, if you don't
>>>>> need all of the features of BEEP, finding your way into
>>>>> the spottily-implemented and worse-documented libraries
>>>>> is *ugly*.
>>>>> This, by the way, is why CRISP developed a non-BEEP tranport
>>>>> for IRIS after the original BEEP one.  And there have been
>>>>> more implementations by key stakeholders *because* of that
>>>>> change.
>>>>> Sigh.  Sometimes the architecturally right thing gets undermined
>>>>> by practical realities.
>>>>> Leslie.

Isms mailing list
Isms at lists.ietf.org

More information about the Wims mailing list