W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > May 2003

Re: PASWA, Include and Protocol Bindings

From: John J. Barton <John_Barton@hpl.hp.com>
Date: Fri, 09 May 2003 09:23:16 -0700
Message-Id: <>
To: Marc Hadley <Marc.Hadley@Sun.COM>, Mark Nottingham <mark.nottingham@bea.com>
Cc: Martin Gudgin <mgudgin@microsoft.com>, noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com, xml-dist-app@w3.org

At 10:59 AM 5/9/2003 -0400, Marc Hadley wrote:

>On Thursday, May 8, 2003, at 20:05 US/Eastern, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>>>So yes, C and D are after dumb hops. I thought the promise of PASWA was
>>>supposed to be that the on the wire serialization was transparent ;-).
>>And it is! It's only when you want to play funny games with things like
>>optimisations of signatures that you have to make special allowances ;)
>Which could be restated as: it is as long as you're prepared to take the 
>hit of base64 encoding/decoding.

Base64 overhead has two parts: CPU and more bits on the wire.  My bet is
the CPU part would be lost in the signature computation.  If we have to live
with b64 in the algorithm, its ok.

>Attachments is supposed to be a mechanism to avoid that :-o.

We can avoid the worst one, the more bits part.

>Marc Hadley <marc.hadley@sun.com>
>Web Technologies and Standards, Sun Microsystems.

John J. Barton          email:  John_Barton@hpl.hp.com
MS 1U-17  Hewlett-Packard Labs
1501 Page Mill Road              phone: (650)-236-2888
Palo Alto CA  94304-1126         FAX:   (650)-857-5100
Received on Friday, 9 May 2003 12:23:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 22:01:23 UTC