Shapira, Noam (Shapira_Noam@icomverse.com)
Thu, 25 Oct 2001 19:00:32 +0200
Hi all,
Following comments in the last IETF meeting to bind the SNAP to a unique
"transport protocol", Currently, two main alternatives where raised: HTTP
and BEEP. During the last few weeks we checked the BEEP as an alternative to
HTTP, but we got negative reactions from people in the email world.
Currently, we implemented SNAP in HTTP. I can see some advantages for BEEP -
on the purely technical side, but on the practical side, I would like to
suggest HTTP. The reason is that HTTP is commonly implemented around the
NET. Both implementers and Firewalls will prefer HTTP. I hope the SNAP can
be immediately deployed and convincing Email servers to implement BEEP (as
it is not yet commonly used) will prevent them from using SNAP. As HTTP does
not impose any hard limitation, there is no reason for not using it. Please
note that later down the road, we can implement a next version for BEEP -
that will be more appropriate when BEEP becomes commonly used.
Any comments?
Noam Shapira
Notification Group Leader
Corporate Components R&D
3Log and MM Division
Comverse
Tel: 972-3-766-3605
Mobile: 972-58-543605
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu Oct 25 2001 - 19:02:51 IST