RE: Proposal for Issues 11/13

Hi Mark,

Generally like this... a little gnit with the wording...

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Nottingham [mailto:mnot@mnot.net]
> Sent: 19 September 2001 01:08
> To: XML Distributed Applications List
> Subject: Proposal for Issues 11/13
> 
> 
> (for inclusion in the binding framework)
> 
> Binding to Application-Specific Protocols
> 
>   Some underlying protocols may be designed for a particular purpose
>   or application profile. SOAP bindings to such protocols MAY use the
>   same endpoint identification (e.g., TCP port number) as the
>   underlying protocol, in order to reuse the existing infrastructure
>   associated that protocol.
> 
>   However, the use of well-known ports by SOAP may incur additional,
>   unintended handling by intermediaries and underlying
>   implementations. For example, HTTP is commonly thought of as a 'Web
>   browsing' protocol, and network administrators may place certain
>   restrictions upon its use, or may interpose services such as
>   filtering, content modification, routing, etc. Often, these
>   services are interposed using port number as a heuristic.
>  
>   As a result, binding definitions which use these protocols SHOULD
                                               ^^^^^

'these' is a little indirect. The most recent 'these's' seems to be HTTP.

Suggest something like:

	"As a result, binding definitions for underlying protocols with
well-known default ports or application profiles SHOULD document potential
(harmful?) interactions with commonly deployed infrastructure at those
default ports or in-conformance with default application profiles. Binding
definitions SHOULD also illustrate..."

>   document this status, and SHOULD illustrate the use of the binding
>   on a non-default port as a means of avoiding unintended interaction
>   with such services.
> 
> 
> -- 
> Mark Nottingham
> http://www.mnot.net/
>  

Cheers,

Stuart

Received on Wednesday, 19 September 2001 09:28:46 UTC