- From: Jean-Jacques Moreau <moreau@crf.canon.fr>
- Date: Wed, 09 Oct 2002 09:47:41 +0200
- To: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- CC: Ugo Corda <UCorda@SeeBeyond.com>, www-ws-arch@w3.org
Mark, You may remember the figure at [1]. Although old and outdated, it shows some of the thinking that was later incorporated into the Transport Binding Framework. The interesting case if Host III. It is a SOAP node that is a SOAP intermediary. It is also a "SOAP gateway", although that term does not formally exist. The two rectangles for Host III in the "Underlying Protocol Layer" mean that, AFAIR, the inbound and outbound protocols are different. However, Host III may not be a "gateway" in the sense you mean. The SOAP message is interpreted at the application layer before being forwarded. I feel this is different for your typical gateway: the gateway would not, in general, have to understand the contents of the message --- just as a layer 2 router would not have to understand the contents of the packet being forwarded. This note is also as a response to [2] and [3]. Does this make sense? Jean-Jacques. [1] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/1/08/14-am/xmlp-am.html#Fig2.2 [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-arch/2002Oct/0119.html [3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-arch/2002Oct/0121.html Mark Baker wrote: > So an HTTP-to-SMTP gateway would be responsible for matching up HTTP > methods and SMTP methods as close as it could, presumably allowing > inbound HTTP POSTs to go out as SMTP DATA requests (with lots of header > futzing).
Received on Wednesday, 9 October 2002 03:47:25 UTC