- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2001 13:56:27 -0700
- To: laird <laird@airbridge.net>
- Cc: eamon.otuathail@clipcode.com, Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <henrikn@microsoft.com>, xml-dist-app@w3.org, "Marshall T. Rose" <mrose+mtr.netnews@dbc.mtview.ca.us>
I agree very much with everything said here, except to wonder about the meaning of 'properly tied together'. On Tue, Jul 10, 2001 at 04:49:19PM -0400, laird wrote: > I would like to second this-in ICE (XML messaging over HTTP, etc) people > use SSL, PKI, etc., (nearly) transparently to ICE if they want to secure > link-level communications, validate servers via x.509, etc. There's no > need to duplicate these standards in higher levels so long as the layers > are properly tied together. > > And for lightweight app's you can run ICE over raw sockets... > > Since ICE implementors has done this for a few years successfully I > assume SOAP can/will do the same. > > Eamon O'Tuathail wrote: > > > From: "Eamon O'Tuathail" <eamon.otuathail@clipcode.com> > > To: "Mark Nottingham" <mnot@mnot.net> > > Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2001 00:11:03 +0100 > > Subject: RE: Protocol Bindings > > > > Mark > > > >> How can you be certain that every underlying application protocol's > >> authentication scheme addresses all of the use cases for SOAP? > > > > The obvious solution is for developers to carefully select an application > > protocol that does exhibit the richness of services they require - not to > > un-necessarily duplicate said services. > > > > Eamon > > > - Laird Popkin, laird@io.com -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Tuesday, 10 July 2001 16:56:37 UTC