W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > July 2001

Re: A tale of two bindings

From: Mark Baker <mbaker@markbaker.ca>
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2001 16:13:26 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <200107242013.QAA04432@markbaker.ca>
To: dcrowley@scitegic.com (David Crowley)
Cc: xml-dist-app@w3.org
David,

> I didn't think port 80 was a crucial part of the HTTP protocol, it's just 
> the default if no specific port is specified.  The HTTP protocol works fine 
> over many other ports, the binding shouldn't be so specific that it fails 
> if its not port 80.

You're right, HTTP works over any port.  The issue is that due to
port 80 being the default port for HTTP, and that it's easier for
them to do so, firewalls typically manage port 80, not HTTP per se.

>  The same binding _should_ work for HTTPS which by 
> default is carried over a different port.  I'm scared that this binding 
> between SOAP and HTTP youre suggesting is getting wound up so tight you 
> will never be able to separate the two.

Hmm, I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion.  It most definitely
is my goal to ensure that the use of SOAP over HTTP be easily
identifiable.  If you see me suggesting something to the contrary,
*please* bring it to my attention.

Thanks.

MB
Received on Tuesday, 24 July 2001 20:24:38 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:03 GMT