- From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2002 16:11:30 -0500 (EST)
- To: mnot@mnot.net (Mark Nottingham)
- Cc: henrikn@microsoft.com (Henrik Frystyk Nielsen), ksankar@cisco.com (Krishna Sankar), xml-dist-app@w3.org
> 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. [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2002Jan/0047.html 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 16:10:53 UTC