[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [wsdm] MUWS - 2.1.2 Message Exchange Patterns
Hi Sanjeev, Even with keep-alive, I believe HTTP 1.1 is still a request-response protocol (the server cannot send unsolicited messages to the client). So, you can't use an HTTP 1.1 connection for asynchronous traffic. In any case, I don't know of any SOAP stacks that could take advantage of this even if it were allowed behavior. Cheers. -- Daniel M. Foody CTO, Actional Corporation 701 N. Shoreline Blvd. Mountain View, CA 94043 http://www.actional.com > -----Original Message----- > From: Sanjeev Kumar [mailto:sakumar@attbi.com] > Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2003 12:45 AM > To: Geoff Bullen > Cc: Wsdm (E-mail) > Subject: Re: [wsdm] MUWS - 2.1.2 Message Exchange Patterns > > > > Geoff, relevant points wrt co-existence with firewalls. More > details below. > > Geoff Bullen wrote: > > > > Hi all, > > I remember as part of the discussion on this section it was > suggested > > that if we just specify that we need an asynchronous protocol, then > > you can implement the single request/reply concept on top > of this... > > so therefore you don't need to specify both. It is my > belief that we > > definitely need to specify a direct request/response > protocol. There > > are a number of cases where using firewalls makes it quite > difficult > > to support asynchronous traffic (messages initiated from both > > ends) rather than the simpler request/reply - where > messages are only > > initiated from one end. > > I think, specifically, maintaining a well-known (inbound) > port on both sides and the connection being persistent should > make things more firewall friendly. If we take the case of > MUWS, then the inbound ports used across the firewall on > either end are most likely to be 80, and we can be explicit > about being able to work over HTTP1.1 and HTTP1.0 w/ > Conn:Keep-Alive. There is still the issue of initiation of > the connection, which typically should always be done from > inside the firewall. But async messages sent over HTTP should > not have this problem. [Correct me if my assumption is wrong here.] > > > I am not suggesting we should not support async, but I think you > > should be able to create a management solution without it. > > Well, if we are to support async, then we have to address > co-existence with firewalls. Given that the transport for WS > is HTTP, we will be at the mercy of the idiosychracies (sp?) > of this protocol wrt firewall-friendliness regardless of the > range of message semantics (sync, async, req-reply) that we address. > > My $0.02! > Sanjeev K. > > You may leave a Technical Committee at any time by visiting http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsdm/members/leave_workgrou p.php
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]