[ogpx] Transport independence (Re: Next Steps for OGPX WG Charter)

[Rob Lanphier <[e-mail]>]

On 08/01/2009 06:54 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
> Joshua Bell wrote:
>> 12. Clarify the charter that we're explicitly targetting HTTP as the
>> default transport.
>>
>> A concern was raised that reusing HTTP will lead to unnecessary and
>> tight coupling with that protocol's capabilities and semantics; a
>> suggestion was made that if we wish to state that the protocols will
>> be transport-neutral, the WG will investigate at least one other
>> transport. Should we just target HTTP, or make the effort?
>
> If transport-independence is claimed, the claim won't really be
> meaningful unless at least two different transport mappings are provided.

For the claim to be watertight, two different transport mappings would
need to be provided. However, it's still possible to make a meaningful
claim of transport-independence mainly by making sure that:
1. The transport requirements (and non-requirements) are clearly specified
2. Everyone remains vigilant about ensuring that transport expectations
are specified in the requirements

Unless there's a great deal of interest from implementors to implement
some other transport, it seems silly to waste the effort specifying
another transport in the name of making a watertight claim of transport
independence.

Rob