RE: SOAP port number

Henrik,

I wasn't aware that we had commissioned a security section specific to HTTP
- not saying that that would be bad, just wasn't conscious that we had pick
up an action specific to HTTP.

Part 1 section 5 contains an empty security section [4] and it also contains
some discussion about default ports binding to application-specific
protocols [5].

I don't think we have lost any (content-ful) material on this topic from the
current WDs.

Stuart
[4] http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/WD-soap12-part1-20011217/#NAF1
[5] http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/WD-soap12-part1-20011217/#NAE2

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen [mailto:henrikn@microsoft.com]
> Sent: 07 January 2002 17:25
> To: Mark Baker
> Cc: Krishna Sankar; xml-dist-app@w3.org
> Subject: RE: SOAP port number
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> One reason being that registering for another port has a whole slew of
> other problems associated with it that causes a lot of complexity and
> little gain. Should we register secondary ports for SMTP and any other
> protocol that can also carry SOAP?
> 
> Hmm, the HTTP security section [1] (which still has to be 
> written) seems
> to have fallen out of the latest draft [2].
> 
> Henrik 
> 
> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/WD-soap12-part2-20011002/#soapsec
> [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/WD-soap12-part2-20011217/
> [3] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/1/09/f2f-minutes.html
> 
> >Nothing's changed, but we haven't yet addressed it for the 
> >default HTTP binding, only for the binding framework.
>

Received on Tuesday, 8 January 2002 05:33:46 UTC