[Ietf-not43] XML-RPC for an information service?

[Stephane Bortzmeyer]

On Wed, Aug 07, 2002 at 11:08:57AM -0400,
 Andrew Newton <anewton@ecotroph.net> wrote 
 a message of 95 lines which said:

> 2) XML-RPC is tied to HTTP (as is SOAP 1.0).

There are implementations of XML-RPC over Jabber and BEEP (under
construction). However, I agree they are extensions of the original
spec (like many good things in XML-RPC, like the introspection API or
the Unicode support).

>  To understand why the firewall-bypass protocol is a bad idea, read
> RFC 3205.

I've read it and, like many people, I disagree with it. If I have a
XML-RPC server which uses HTTP and listens on port 8080, explain how
it violates firewall rules. And what is the difference between a
XML-RPC server using port 80 and a CGI?

> 3) XML-RPC is copyright Dave Winer, with a fairly liberal copyright. 
> SOAP 1.2 will be a W3C spec.  That makes some people a little more
> comfortable (and, I hate to say it, even me).

Me too. It is clearly a problem with XML-RPC. Should I start an IETF
WG to standardize XML-RPC? :-) (I'm joking but it is how the IETF made
SSL into the IETF-compliant TLS.)

> 4) SOAP implementations are available from open source good guys and the
> likes of enterprise solutions providers such as IBM, MicroSoft, BEA,
> etc.

Same thing for XML-RPC.

> In addition, both XML-RPC and SOAP 1.0 seem to violate RFC 3205.  This
> isn't good.

It does not bother me. SOAP 1.0 violates it less (thanks to the
SOAPAction header but SOAP 1.2 will deprecate it).