- From: Champion, Mike <Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com>
- Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 20:40:14 -0700
- To: www-ws-arch@w3.org
> > > -----Original Message----- > From: Mark Baker [mailto:distobj@acm.org] > Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2003 10:25 PM > To: Champion, Mike > Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org > > As Dave points out, and I did before him, it's the methods > that matter the most for the purposes of visibility, not the headers. And as I've argued on several occasions, that's the 1997-vintage model of firewalls, not necessarily the 2003 or 2010 model of firewalls. A number of people who appear to be knowledgeable about firewalls have "+1"-ed my arguments, and I haven't seen anyone but yourself push back on them. You may wish to elaborate. > > > So again, I agree that "visibility" is an important > property, but what > > powers it is *standards*, not just HTTP. > > So where are the standard Web service APIs? Huh? APIs??? FWIW, I was thinking of standards for the format of a message such as XML (duh), Xpath (to let an intermediary inspect an arbitrary section of a message, be it in a SOAP header, the SOAP body, or the payload), specific SOAP header/processing [proto]-standards such as WS-Security, WS-Routing, XACML, etc. and content specs such as XBRL, UBL, various bits of ebXML, and so on. Any standards that you can use to explain to a stupid machine what to look for in a message and how to use its value in a routing/filtering/cacheing decision enhance "visibility" IMHO.
Received on Wednesday, 19 February 2003 22:41:11 UTC