W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > January 2002

RE: Draft registration of application/soap+xml

From: Krishna Sankar <ksankar@cisco.com>
Date: Sun, 6 Jan 2002 09:35:12 -0800
To: "Jacek Kopecky" <jacek@systinet.com>
Cc: <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Message-ID: <NABBJDOPDKGCDCNBNEDOAEACGIAA.ksankar@cisco.com>
Jacek,

	Yep, one can use any port number. No problems there and that is an
implementation detail.

	IMHO, it is not a question of whether you can or cannot. But
architecturally what do we do as an answer to the overused port 80 problem.

	Referring to use of http as a substrate
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-moore-using-http-01.txt, I view
the "application/soap+xml" as a "substantially new service", thus requiring
a new port.

	a)	SOAP is a different animal than HTML,
	b)	it would be used by separate server processes and
	c)	most importantly there is a need for distinguishing this traffic
separate from others.

	Talking about a port number in the media type might be unconventional, may
be not. IMHO, I would like to RECOMMEND Port 90 used for SOAP traffic. Now
if we are using SOAP over ftp or SOAP/SMTP we might not. But the most common
use, SOAP/HTTP, should be on 90. Another dimension is the IPV6 which I
haven't thought thru yet. I think it is high time we think SOAP as a new
pervasive protocol and treat it as such. Like you pointed out may be this
means an HTTP clone. Again this is not going to happen immediately - what we
could do is to plan the seeds, provide initial recommendations and work our
way up.I am sure we will have more discussions.

cheers

 | -----Original Message-----
 | From: xml-dist-app-request@w3.org [mailto:xml-dist-app-request@w3.org]On
 | Behalf Of Jacek Kopecky
 | Sent: Sunday, January 06, 2002 8:55 AM
 | To: Krishna Sankar
 | Cc: xml-dist-app@w3.org
 | Subject: RE: Draft registration of application/soap+xml
 |
 |
 |  Krishna,
 |  regarding the new port number:
 |  I believe you can put your web service on any port number you
 | wish, the URLs in form http://server:port/ are commonly accepted.
 |  The port number also depends on the used protocol, in case of
 | SOAP it is usually HTTP which says the default is 80. But again,
 | you can use a different port.
 |  Do you envision we create an HTTP clone that would have a
 | different URI scheme and a different default port? Why?
 |  Best regards,
 |
 |                    Jacek Kopecky
 |
 |                    Senior Architect, Systinet (formerly Idoox)
 |                    http://www.systinet.com/
 |
 |
 |
 | On Fri, 4 Jan 2002, Krishna Sankar wrote:
 |
 |  > 	3.	A new port number ! Can we ask for a new well known
 | port number for the
 |  > "application/soap+xml" messages ? It is high time somebody
 | championed this
 |  > issue - why not us ? :o)
 |
 |
Received on Sunday, 6 January 2002 12:36:18 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:05 GMT