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

Re: Proposal for Issues 11/13

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2001 09:43:33 -0700
To: "Williams, Stuart" <skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: XML Distributed Applications List <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20010919094333.B1506@mnot.net>

Fine by me.


On Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 02:28:32PM +0100, Williams, Stuart wrote:
> Hi Mark,
> 
> Generally like this... a little gnit with the wording...
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Mark Nottingham [mailto:mnot@mnot.net]
> > Sent: 19 September 2001 01:08
> > To: XML Distributed Applications List
> > Subject: Proposal for Issues 11/13
> > 
> > 
> > (for inclusion in the binding framework)
> > 
> > Binding to Application-Specific Protocols
> > 
> >   Some underlying protocols may be designed for a particular purpose
> >   or application profile. SOAP bindings to such protocols MAY use the
> >   same endpoint identification (e.g., TCP port number) as the
> >   underlying protocol, in order to reuse the existing infrastructure
> >   associated that protocol.
> > 
> >   However, the use of well-known ports by SOAP may incur additional,
> >   unintended handling by intermediaries and underlying
> >   implementations. For example, HTTP is commonly thought of as a 'Web
> >   browsing' protocol, and network administrators may place certain
> >   restrictions upon its use, or may interpose services such as
> >   filtering, content modification, routing, etc. Often, these
> >   services are interposed using port number as a heuristic.
> >  
> >   As a result, binding definitions which use these protocols SHOULD
>                                                ^^^^^
> 
> 'these' is a little indirect. The most recent 'these's' seems to be HTTP.
> 
> Suggest something like:
> 
> 	"As a result, binding definitions for underlying protocols with
> well-known default ports or application profiles SHOULD document potential
> (harmful?) interactions with commonly deployed infrastructure at those
> default ports or in-conformance with default application profiles. Binding
> definitions SHOULD also illustrate..."
> 
> >   document this status, and SHOULD illustrate the use of the binding
> >   on a non-default port as a means of avoiding unintended interaction
> >   with such services.
> > 
> > 
> > -- 
> > Mark Nottingham
> > http://www.mnot.net/
> >  
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Stuart

-- 
Mark Nottingham
http://www.mnot.net/
 
Received on Wednesday, 19 September 2001 12:43:40 GMT

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