• From: Al Snell <alaric@a...>
• To: Steinar Bang <sb@m...>
• Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2001 17:59:17 +0100 (BST)

On Sat, 14 Apr 2001, Steinar Bang wrote:

> > port 80; that's for transferring hypertext. We have 65,000 or so
> > port numbers to choose from. If we use different port numbers for
> > different things, firewall administrators can make networks secure
> > by controlling what does and doesn't get let through.
> 
> Ah, but SOAP using port 80 is a _feature_, you know.  It allows SOAP
> to _tunnel_ through the firewall.

Yeah... that kind of statement (which I have heard from people who mean
it) makes me feel all... sick inside.

> OMG's Richard M. Soley had a very entertaining rant about this bit of
> SOAP advertising at the XML Day in Oslo, last October.

http://RFC.net/rfc3093.html

Firewall Enhancement Protocol

"Since this protocol deals with Firewalls there are no real security 
considerations." - you heard the man.

ABS

-- 
                               Alaric B. Snell
 http://www.alaric-snell.com/  http://RFC.net/  http://www.warhead.org.uk/
   Any sufficiently advanced technology can be emulated in software  

• References:
  • Re: "Binary XML" proposals
    • From: Steinar Bang <sb@m...>

• Prev by Date: Re: "Binary XML" proposals
• Next by Date: Re: Binary XML - summary of discussion to date
• Previous by thread: Re: "Binary XML" proposals
• Next by thread: HTTP vs. TCP (Re: "Binary XML" proposals)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread