Re: SOAP port number

> IIRC this was discussed at the F2F as well. 
> Defining a new port gets us into the morass of defining what an HTTP
> application is, what the semantics of a port are, etc.

I'd say that all those issues are already on the table independant of
whether a new port is defined.

> I would strongly urge the group not to pursue this; although it seems
> like a good/friendly thing to do, it encourages people to trust (or
> not trust) traffic by port, which is unrealistic and dangerous.

Yes, that's a good point.  This would definitely *not* be a good thing,
especially when its true use would be as a catchall with no behavioural
guarantees of any kind.

So, can we agree to *not* defining a standard port, but instead document
that a non-default port should be used when SOAP is used to tunnel
(which is a refinement on the agreement at the SJ F2F)?  We'd have to
define tunnel well - I think my response to Rich[1] could be used as a
basis for that text, in part.


Mark Baker, Chief Science Officer, Planetfred, Inc.
Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.

Received on Monday, 7 January 2002 16:10:53 UTC