- From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2002 17:48:32 -0500 (EST)
- To: ksankar@cisco.com (Krishna Sankar)
- Cc: xml-dist-app@w3.org
> 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. For the good reason Mark gave; that expectations will be made about the traffic over that port. Even for the registration of the port[1], it assumes that a protocol with an identifiable function is what is being registered. Considering that this would have to be a catchall port for all tunneled uses of HTTP, it should not use a single port. It may be the case, for example, that somebody will build a new protocol with SOAP that performs some task. In this case, that protocol and task should get its own port. [1] http://www.iana.org/cgi-bin/sys-port-number.pl 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 17:48:24 UTC