• To: <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: Re: Elliotte Rusty Harold on Web Services
• From: "Bill Kearney" <wkearney@i...>
• Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 15:01:35 -0500
• References: <003801c2c946$e5b34520$6401a8c0@cavnarjohnson> <3E3AAB07.4080403@d...> <oprjvm6xiqezizxn@s...> <E18egMz-0005Uo-00@c...>
• Reply-to: "Bill Kearney" <wkearney@i...>

> That one port for general Web services might be best kept away from port 80
> for a number of reasons; it is conceptually distinct from the human oriented
> communications on port 80, for a start.
>
> But an HTTP-based protocol for, say, instant messaging should have a port
> unto itself where firewall admins can selectively enable or disable incoming
> traffic to their workstation cluster!

Also to allow more effective ACLs and state handling of the traffic.  HTTP
traffic posting to a web page might be filtered, managed, cached or otherwise
handled in ways entirely unsuitable for, say, streamed data.  Especially if
'purpose built' hardware starts evolving...

-Bill Kearney

• References:
  • RE: Elliotte Rusty Harold on Web Services
    • From: "Cavnar-Johnson, John" <JCavnar-Johnson@s...>
  • Re: Elliotte Rusty Harold on Web Services
    • From: Rich Salz <rsalz@d...>
  • Re: Elliotte Rusty Harold on Web Services
    • From: Mike Champion <mc@x...>
  • Re: Elliotte Rusty Harold on Web Services
    • From: "Alaric B. Snell" <alaric@a...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Are There URIs in Heaven?
• Next by Date: RE: Are There URIs in Heaven?
• Previous by thread: Re: Elliotte Rusty Harold on Web Services
• Next by thread: Re: Elliotte Rusty Harold in Heaven Talking to God
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread