- From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2002 12:43:02 -0500 (EST)
- To: henrikn@microsoft.com (Henrik Frystyk Nielsen)
- Cc: ksankar@cisco.com (Krishna Sankar), 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. It looks like at that f2f, Mark's "Proposal One" was adopted; Dedicate a sizeable portion of text warning of the dangers of using the default port, and encouraging the use of an alternate port when possible. Which is great from my POV. But I don't think that precludes us defining an alternate port in the default HTTP binding that folks can use in place of 80. But I don't have strong feelings one way or the other. It would only be for convenience. MB -- Mark Baker, Chief Science Officer, Planetfred, Inc. Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA. mbaker@planetfred.com http://www.markbaker.ca http://www.planetfred.com
Received on Monday, 7 January 2002 12:42:27 UTC