Re: [emergency-msg] Backward compatibility

["R. Allen Wyke" <emtc@nc.rr.com>]

In regards to the snip (below) from your reply, I would love to hear
more about XMLTP. Specifically, I would love to hear thoughts from the
EMIF SC, and a) if it fits with some of our needs, and b) where it fits.
Definitely sounds promising....

Allen

On Thu, 2003-10-02 at 10:32, Rex Brooks wrote:
> So in line with the fact that all of our work depends on 
> infrastructure, I would suggest that we include a specific set of 
> requirements from our TC to W3C XML Transport Protocol Working Group. 
> My requirements would be for at least two kinds of functionality in 
> XMLTP (in addition to being a kind of traffic control switch amongst 
> existing transport protocols as will be seen in my set of 
> requirements). Those two kinds of functionality would be synchronous 
> and aynchornous messaging--in a secure signal stream separate from 
> http and IM, both of which should be callable from XMLTP to transfer 
> functioning from one transport protocol to another based on a set of 
> criteria comprised of;
> 	1 - SOAP calls to http, with secure SOAP calls to  https;
> 	2 - non-critical (i.e. cirucmstantial and ansynchornous 
> updates such as changing stock prices)
> 	messaging to secure IM;
> 	3 - critical (Emergency Management high priority-severe 
> rated, and synchornous) messaging
> 	kept within secure XMLTP;  and,
> 	4 - noncritical asynchronous messaging kept within less secure XMLTP.
> 
> This would give us in effect our own secure channel for EM (3 above) 
> AND this would be truly global, so the door would be open for the 
> creation of faster more localized internationalization and 
> localization.
-- 
R. Allen Wyke
Chair, Emergency Management TC
emtc@nc.rr.com
http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/emergency