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

Re: SOAP port number

From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2002 17:48:32 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <200201072248.RAA01307@markbaker.ca>
To: ksankar@cisco.com (Krishna Sankar)
Cc: xml-dist-app@w3.org
>  Looks like an anemic response to me. If we encourage a non-default port,
> why not suggest one as well.  That will only help the adoption of our
> recommendation. I would like to understand why RECOMMENDING a port is a bad
> thing.

For the good reason Mark gave; that expectations will be made about the
traffic over that port.  Even for the registration of the port[1], it
assumes that a protocol with an identifiable function is what is being
registered.  Considering that this would have to be a catchall port for
all tunneled uses of HTTP, it should not use a single port.

It may be the case, for example, that somebody will build a new protocol
with SOAP that performs some task.  In this case, that protocol and task
should get its own port.

 [1] http://www.iana.org/cgi-bin/sys-port-number.pl

MB
-- 
Mark Baker, Chief Science Officer, Planetfred, Inc.
Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.      mbaker@planetfred.com
http://www.markbaker.ca   http://www.planetfred.com
Received on Monday, 7 January 2002 17:48:24 GMT

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