W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-arch@w3.org > September 2002

RE: Intermediaries - various cases

From: Ugo Corda <UCorda@SeeBeyond.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 12:12:08 -0700
Message-ID: <C513FB68F8200244B570543EF3FC65370A855B40@MAIL1.stc.com>
To: "'Mark Baker'" <distobj@acm.org>
Cc: "'www-ws-arch@w3.org'" <www-ws-arch@w3.org>

It's also interesting to read Jacek Kopecky's comment in issue#2:

"In some cases putting the target URI in the envelope may be undesirable
(security considerations, for example) or even impossible (when the source
does not know/care  where exactly the message goes after reaching some
intermediary)."

It sounds like the second case that Jacek mentions is the pub/sub one. If
that is true, then he is thinking of the pub/sub node as an intermediary.

Ugo

-----Original Message-----
From: Ugo Corda [mailto:UCorda@SeeBeyond.com]
Sent: Friday, September 27, 2002 12:01 PM
To: 'Mark Baker'
Cc: 'www-ws-arch@w3.org'
Subject: RE: Intermediaries - various cases



>> But is it possible to objectively identify this transfer contract?
>Sure, it's between the initial sender and the specified ultimate
>recipient.

>"ultimate" is a deceptive word in the gateway case.  I believe it refers
>to the the ultimate recipient as specified by the initial sender.  This
>is consistent with SOAP 1.2's use of the word, AFAICT.  It also relates
>to issue #2;

But issue #2 is exactly about the fact that SOAP 1.2 does not provide any
explicit mechanism for specifying the ultimate recipient. (Of course I can
always define a SOAP extension that provides that, but it does not seem to
be part of the basic spec).

Ugo
Received on Friday, 27 September 2002 15:12:40 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 3 July 2007 12:25:06 GMT