- From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2001 14:21:31 -0400 (EDT)
- To: mnot@mnot.net (Mark Nottingham)
- Cc: henrikn@microsoft.com (Henrik Frystyk Nielsen), xml-dist-app@w3.org
Mark, > Why is a separate property necessary? I'd imagine that you'd just Because both the syntax and semantics for this property have to be shared between bindings. > define two bindings; one without many (or any) properties exposed, > one with a number. You could use different content types for them Which works for transfer protocols that have a notion of a content type. For those that don't, some other syntax will be required. That's why I suggest one syntax per protocol, rather than per binding. > (tho I don't really see the utility in this). It's primarily for security reasons. A firewall admin should be able to identify (for blocking, or further filtering) SOAP based protocols being tunneled over application protocols, while permitting uses of SOAP that use the application protocols as they were designed to be used. FWIW, I believe this is only relevant to application protocol bindings, not to transport protocol bindings. MB
Received on Tuesday, 21 August 2001 14:21:39 UTC