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

RE: SOAP port number

From: Eugene Kuznetsov <eugene@datapower.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2002 13:06:32 -0500
To: "Mark Baker" <distobj@acm.org>, "Henrik Frystyk Nielsen" <henrikn@microsoft.com>
Cc: "Krishna Sankar" <ksankar@cisco.com>, <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Message-ID: <NDBBLGLOJMHANDPKJOCOOEMLFBAA.eugene@datapower.com>
Discussion on this issue is always a catch-22: "SOAP over HTTP is good
because we can traverse firewalls over port 80" followed by "SOAP over HTTP
is bad because it causes security problems and puts further burden on
already-overloaded port 80".

Naturally, anyone looking at the problem "from the bottom up" (e.g., from
the standpoint of network infrastructure, as opposed to applications), will
always see the need for lower-level network traffic classification
opportunities -- be it a SOAP-specific HTTP header marker or a SOAP-specific
TCP port.

Which is I think where Krishna is coming from, please correct me if I'm
wrong. If so, I very much agree -- it's easier to pre-classify traffic for
routing or filtering at lower levels.

> Which is great from my POV.  But I don't think that precludes us
> defining an alternate port in the default HTTP binding that folks can
> use in place of 80.

Right, I'd just like to know which "alternate port" someone will be using if
they choose not to use port 80. I don't care if it is port 10, 90 or 512 --
but I think there is value in guiding users to a specific port.



\\ Eugene Kuznetsov
\\ eugene@datapower.com
\\ DataPower Technology, Inc.
Received on Monday, 7 January 2002 13:01:36 GMT

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