[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
IP packets are much simpler to check because the head
fields are fixed in length. CRC checking is typical,
and is equvalent to signature of SOAP.
Other checking, such as IP, port, process id, TCP flow
control etc, are less sophiscated than Schema.
Deep content inspection offers to look at teh packet
content,but still is less complicated than Schema.
--- costello@mitre.org wrote:
> Hi Folks,
>
> I remember reading a long time ago a posting by
> David Megginson. Paraphrasing, David said, "when
> dealing with XML you are working down at the bare
> metal".
>
> Other technologies work down at the bare metal, such
> as TCP/IP. Perhaps there are lessons to be learned
> there? Certain TCP/IP packets are rejected as bad
> and the other packets are accepted and passed up to
> other layers, where those layers perform additional
> constraint checking.
>
> If we accept the conjecture that XML is down at the
> bare metal level, then perhaps the only constraint
> checking that should be done by an XML Schema is
> parallel to the kinds of checking that is done on
> TCP/IP packets. All other constraint checking is
> passed up to other layers.
>
> Can someone characterize the kind of constraint
> checking that is done on TCP/IP packets? What would
> be the parallel constraint checking in XML Schemas?
> /Roger
>
>
>
>
>
-----------------------------------------------------------------
> The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org
> <http://www.xml.org>, an
> initiative of OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org>
>
> The list archives are at
> http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the
> subscription
> manager:
> <http://www.oasis-open.org/mlmanage/index.php>
>
>
|
