Re: [APPS-REVIEW] Review of HTTP Binding for DSKPP

[Hannes Tschofenig <Hannes.Tschofenig at gmx.net>]

Hi Chris,

thanks for the response.

Chris Newman wrote:

> I expect HTTP bindings to address the concerns raised in BCP 56.  



I will read through BCP 56.

> Unless the primary client for your protocol is a web browser, I would 
> strongly encourage registering a separate port.  In the SMTP world, 
> the primary source of interoperability problems is application-level 
> gateways/firewalls.  At this point it's inevitable we'll end up with 
> intrusive firewalls on port 80 that will break anything beyond stock 
> browser-based HTTP.  I encourage new HTTP-based protocols to register 
> a separate port so they have the opportunity to avoid such damage and 
> interoperability problems.  It also simplifies responsible firewall 
> operation by enabling port-based service restrictions that are more 
> scalable and less intrusive.
I am not sure whether the separate port number idea will find a lot of 
excitement since the downside is that a network operator that just does 
not care about the specific protocol (even through he does not mind 
allowing end hosts to run it) will essentially block it.

> I have yet to see any evidence that WSDL is useful in practice but 
> that may be due to my lack of experience with web services.
I have received this type of feedback from a couple of different sides 
already.

> I find Relax NG and/or XML schema useful for XML-based 
> protocols/formats whether or not they are built on top of HTTP.  My 
> understanding is that Relax NG is better for extensible entity-based 
> XML formats, whereas XML Schema is better for XML formats with strong 
> value typing.
We will certainly make use of an XML schema.

> I haven't reviewed the DSKPP draft yet.
I need to see whether I need to make changes based on the 
above-mentioned BCP. Hence, I would advice to wait a bit.

Ciao
Hannes

>                - Chris
>
> Hannes Tschofenig wrote on 9/13/07 14:56 +0200:
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I would like to solicit feedback regarding the HTTP binding described in
> > DSKPP:
> > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-keyprov-dskpp-00.txt
> >
> > I went through a couple of documents that describe an HTTP binding and
> > noticed all of them are slightly different. If you, for example, take 
> > a look
> > at another recent work, namely HELD, from the GEOPRIV working group 
> > then you
> > will notice that the author incorporated a WSDL binding. The draft is 
> > here:
> > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-geopriv-http-location-delivery 
> >
> > -01.txt
> >
> > Do people on this list have an opinion about the content they would 
> > like to
> > see in these type of documents?
> > What is the opinion regarding the usage of WSDL?
> >
> > Ciao
> > Hannes



_______________________________________________
APPS-REVIEW mailing list
APPS-REVIEW at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-review