Mandatory transports for VOSpace - why not?

[Doug Tody]

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