t; >
> >>> > SOAPAction header should be ignored).
> >>>
> >>> Yep; seems to me that Content-Type ss more appropriate for dispatch,
> >>> if doing it in a header is desireable.
> > >
> > >ugh. only if you must. the URL is *far* better for this purpose.
>
--
Mike Fisk, RADIANT Team, Network Engineering Group, Los Alamos National Lab
See http://home.lanl.gov/mfisk/ for contact information
On Thu, 21 Dec 2000, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
> At 09:47 19/12/2000 -0800, Mike Fisk wrote:
> >It's an argument of semantics, but I prefer to say that we're separating
> >transport-layer end-to-end from application-layer end-to-end. Make
> >applications
On Tue, 19 Dec 2000, Theodore Y. Ts'o wrote:
>Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 14:45:08 -0800 (PST)
> From: Mike Fisk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>Gateways that surreptitiously modify packets can break ANY end-to-end
>protocol no matter what layer it's a
fiable
chain to the key known as (.com's cheapwidgets's www). It will also
provide a mapping to the current routing address (which could be a point
of aggregation that knows a better local address).
More sophisticated directory services (or SIP servers) can provide the
same secure mapping to a key and/or DNS name.
--
Mike Fisk, RADIANT Team, Network Engineering Group, Los Alamos National Lab
See http://home.lanl.gov/mfisk/ for contact information
ieve the assumption is that you will have a local network with no
packet loss or significant bit error rate. Basically, you assume that
your ethernet is as reliable as your SCSI cable or fiber-channel network.
For a well engineered, fully-switched LAN, that may be a reasonable
assumption.
-- Mike
