• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: REST has too many verbs
• From: Paul Prescod <paul@p...>
• Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 10:56:31 -0800
• References: <1013451210.845.127.camel@l...> <3C68021A.98D28BF1@p...> <E16aL3W-0003Hp-00@s...>

Gavin Thomas Nicol wrote:
> 
> > If you do that, you make it extremely difficult to build
> > intermediaries like:
> >
> >  * store-and-forward services
> >  * caches
> >  * firewalls
> >  * proxies
> >  * message routers
> >  * privacy managing intermediaries
> 
> This is not strictly true.

You say that but your message did not provide any evidence.

> I don't think you can assume that visibility is always a good
> thing.... 

Optional visibility is always a good thing. You can turn it off easily
if you don't want it. SSL is an example of turning it off.

> ... and I would say that in many cases, HTTP 1.1 proxies have
> too much visibility, especially from a security perspective.... the
> classic "man in the middle attack" can be made fairly easily unless
> you're using SSL etc.

So you're saying that HTTP can be fairly easily attacked from a security
point of view unless you use the security features.

 Paul Prescod

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: REST has too many verbs
    • From: Gavin Thomas Nicol <gtn@r...>

• References:
  • REST has too many verbs
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
  • Re: REST has too many verbs
    • From: Paul Prescod <paul@p...>
  • Re: REST has too many verbs
    • From: Gavin Thomas Nicol <gtn@r...>

• Prev by Date: Re: REST has too many verbs
• Next by Date: Re: REST has too many verbs
• Previous by thread: Re: REST has too many verbs
• Next by thread: Re: REST has too many verbs
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread