- From: laird <laird@airbridge.net>
- Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2001 16:50:54 -0400 (EDT)
- To: eamon.otuathail@clipcode.com, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Cc: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <henrikn@microsoft.com>, xml-dist-app@w3.org, "Marshall T. Rose" <mrose+mtr.netnews@dbc.mtview.ca.us>
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
Received on Wednesday, 11 July 2001 08:32:37 UTC