Re: Mandatory transports for VOSpace - why not?

From: Doug Tody <dtody-at-nrao.edu>
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2006 07:26:16 -0600 (MDT)


I should think that support for at least HTTP would be mandatory. Clearly though, one would want to limit the number of mandatory protocols to a very small number (using widely standardized technologies likely to available in all implementation environments), with everything else being optional. - Doug

On Mon, 19 Jun 2006, Paul Harrison wrote:

> I think I have made it pretty clear why I think that the VOSpace
> specification should include some mandatory protocols - i.e. so that VOSpace
> implementations that are compliant have a common set of protocols that they
> can interoperate with - I genuinely do not understand the arguments for *not*
> mandating some protocols - can someone put forward these arguments?
>
> Paul Harrison
> ESO
Received on 2006-06-19Z15:27:29