- From: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <henrikn@microsoft.com>
- Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2002 09:25:17 -0800
- To: "Mark Baker" <distobj@acm.org>
- Cc: "Krishna Sankar" <ksankar@cisco.com>, <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
IIRC, we decided [3] to keep the port and have a security section in the HTTP binding section warning about the dangers of using SOAP over HTTP in general and in particular about the port issue. One reason being that registering for another port has a whole slew of other problems associated with it that causes a lot of complexity and little gain. Should we register secondary ports for SMTP and any other protocol that can also carry SOAP? Hmm, the HTTP security section [1] (which still has to be written) seems to have fallen out of the latest draft [2]. Henrik [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/WD-soap12-part2-20011002/#soapsec [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/WD-soap12-part2-20011217/ [3] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/1/09/f2f-minutes.html >Nothing's changed, but we haven't yet addressed it for the >default HTTP binding, only for the binding framework.
Received on Monday, 7 January 2002 12:25:52 UTC