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

RE: PASWA, Include and Protocol Bindings

From: Martin Gudgin <mgudgin@microsoft.com>
Date: Wed, 14 May 2003 08:24:47 -0700
Message-ID: <7C083876C492EB4BAAF6B3AE0732970E0B740207@red-msg-08.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "John J. Barton" <John_Barton@hpl.hp.com>, "Marc Hadley" <Marc.Hadley@Sun.COM>, "Mark Nottingham" <mark.nottingham@bea.com>
Cc: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>, <xml-dist-app@w3.org>

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: John J. Barton [mailto:John_Barton@hpl.hp.com] 
> Sent: 09 May 2003 17:23
> To: Marc Hadley; Mark Nottingham
> Cc: Martin Gudgin; noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com; xml-dist-app@w3.org
> Subject: Re: PASWA, Include and Protocol Bindings
> 
> 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.

I'm doing some test WRT this right now. I'll post results when I have
them,

Gudge
Received on Wednesday, 14 May 2003 11:24:59 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:14 GMT