RE: SOAP port number

• From: Krishna Sankar <ksankar@cisco.com>
• Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2002 14:01:20 -0800
• To: <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
• Message-ID: <NABBJDOPDKGCDCNBNEDOMEDPGIAA.ksankar@cisco.com>

Hi,

 |
 | 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.
 |
<KS>
 Not yet.

 Looks like an anemic response to me. If we encourage a non-default port,
why not suggest one as well. That will only help the adoption of our
recommendation. I would like to understand why RECOMMENDING a port is a bad
thing.
<KS>

cheers

Received on Monday, 7 January 2002 17:01:54 UTC