Re: CTG: non-traditional browsing applications

Eduardo Casais wrote:
[...]
>> If the SOAP spec itself does not forbid 
>> active intermediaries at the SOAP level, 
>> why should we globally forbid non-
>> transparent proxies operations on SOAP
>> content?
> 
> Because we are already restricting such 
> behaviour in the comparable, though perhaps
> more general case of browsing over HTTP (where
> the original RFC2616 mentions, and does not
> prohibit non-transparent proxies), notably
> with restrictions over transformation of
> mobile-optimized content or "conversion" of
> HTTP methods, for instance.

Actually, that's my point, we are not restricting things more than they 
are in RFC2616. Restrictions over transformation of mobile-optimized are 
at the SHOULD level, compatible with RFC2616.

> 
> Besides, the SOAP specifications state:
> 
> "It is strongly recommended that SOAP
> features provided by active SOAP 
> intermediaries be described in a manner that 
> allows such modifications to be detected by 
> affected SOAP nodes in the message path."
> 
> In other words, clients and servers should get
> a formal description of the modifications 
> performed by such intermediaries. The current
> CTG do not even go as far as that; I would
> gladly accept inclusion of a comparable
> requirement into the document.

Here again, strongly recommended means SHOULD, and this section does not 
even use the notational conventions for normative statements used 
throughout the rest of the document.

Francois.



>> I do not see a role either and don't
>> remember people mentioning true use cases,
>> but I do not think no immediate role and 
>> potential danger translte into "we must 
>> prevent".
> 
> The past experience with CT proxies has been
> traumatic enough that we should err on the
> side of caution.
> 
> 
> E.Casais
> 
> 
>       
>

Received on Tuesday, 3 November 2009 08:18:43 UTC