W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > January 2006

Re: Action Item - Part I: WSRX and MEP signaling on the wire (clarification)

From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2006 17:20:31 -0800
Message-ID: <c70bc85d0601101720k7f67a7c2ved1a16cd68ff0581@mail.gmail.com>
To: David Hull <dmh@tibco.com>
Cc: xml-dist-app@w3.org

On 1/10/06, David Hull <dmh@tibco.com> wrote:
>  One small clarification.  The sentence "The only problem appears to be that
> the resulting SOAP 'request' and 'response' messages aren't correlated in
> the usual manner." may seem to state that the usual rules of HTTP
> request-response are not in effect, which was not my intent and is
> definitely not what the rest of the piece is saying.  It would probably have
> been better to say something more like "The only problem appears to be that
> the resulting SOAP request and response messages can also be interpreted as
> part of a message flow completely distinct from the HTTP request-response
> flow."

Thanks for the clarification, David, I agree that the replacement text
describes a less serious problem than the original text.  It's still a
problem though (as you note) from a transfer binding POV, and it does
still impact HTTP intermediaries, in particular in this case,
firewalls, which require knowing what's a request and what's a
response to do their job properly.  Consider that if SOAP requests
could arrive as HTTP responses (PAOS anyone?), that this would be a
serious security problem.

Received on Wednesday, 11 January 2006 01:20:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 22:01:28 UTC