W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-arch@w3.org > December 2003

RE: Intermediaries

From: Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler) <RogerCutler@chevrontexaco.com>
Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2003 14:35:36 -0600
Message-ID: <7FCB5A9F010AAE419A79A54B44F3718E03132877@bocnte2k3.boc.chevrontexaco.net>
To: "Francis McCabe" <fgm@fla.fujitsu.com>, "Ugo Corda" <UCorda@SeeBeyond.com>
Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org

I don't think Ugo meant to diss you, and I certainly didn't.  I
personally don't understand some of your comments about this subject and
would appreciate it if you would rephrase them in a way that might give
me a better chance at it.  I brought it up for that reason.  There's a
difference between disagreeing with you, which I occasionally do, and
not having a clue what you are trying to get at, which is neither
agreeing nor disagreeing.

-----Original Message-----
From: www-ws-arch-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-arch-request@w3.org] On
Behalf Of Francis McCabe
Sent: Friday, December 05, 2003 2:30 PM
To: Ugo Corda
Cc: <www-ws-arch@w3.org>
Subject: Re: Intermediaries

I kind of take a mild exception to this Ugo. I don't think it is fair 
to say that I am try to "satisfy my philosophical interests" with 
computer technologies.

I am banging on quite a lot about intermediaries because I think that 
it represents a way into a very difficult problem: how to actually 
build large scale systems.


On Dec 5, 2003, at 12:16 PM, Ugo Corda wrote:

> Roger,
> I would not go for the deep philosophical meaning in all this. We just
> have to acknowledge that specs have always some underspecified areas. 
> Maybe when WS-I decides to tackle intermediaries in a Basic Profile 
> (right now they are just "extension points"), it will pick a 
> particular interpretation of this subject and run with it.
> In my view, computer technologies are not the right place to look when
> you want to satisfy your philosophical interests ;-).
> Ugo
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: www-ws-arch-request@w3.org 
>> [mailto:www-ws-arch-request@w3.org]On
>> Behalf Of Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler)
>> Sent: Friday, December 05, 2003 11:59 AM
>> To: Ricky Ho; www-ws-arch@w3.org
>> Subject: RE: Intermediaries
>> I might also comment that Frank seems to have a more Olympian view of

>> the matter and, as far as I can tell, is saying that the messages are

>> "the same" because we DEFINE them to be the same, not because they 
>> are judgeed to be the same by any criteria.  Maybe I didn't put this 
>> quite right because I don't understand what he is saying, so I didn't

>> make an effort to capture it.
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: www-ws-arch-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-arch-request@w3.org] 
>> On Behalf Of Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler)
>> Sent: Friday, December 05, 2003 1:53 PM
>> To: Ricky Ho; www-ws-arch@w3.org
>> Subject: RE: Intermediaries
>> Again, this is sort of third hand -- I have been trying to capture 
>> what other people said.  However, I believe that the sense I got from

>> David Booth and others is that the issue of whether the message going

>> from A to I is "the same" as that going from I to B is something
>> that has to be
>> considered in the context of "the application", broadly
>> understood. That
>> is, "the application" includes both what A is doing and what
>> B is doing.
>> So I guess that there is a God-like observer involved in this
>> or something.  I don't see how you can think about
>> choreography without
>> postulating some observer that can see everything that
>> happens and whose
>> observations correspond absolute reality, as opposed to what
>> is visible
>> to any particular participant.
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Ricky Ho [mailto:riho@cisco.com]
>> Sent: Friday, December 05, 2003 1:30 PM
>> To: Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler); www-ws-arch@w3.org
>> Subject: RE: Intermediaries
>> 1) I can't see how B or C can determine whether the modified message 
>> is the
>> same message given that they haven't seen the original one.
>> 2) SOAP doesn't have the "SAME MESSAGE" concept and therefore it is 
>> NOT possible to make such differentiation at the SOAP level.  In
>> some other
>> spec (such as RM), the "SAME MESSAGE" concept is very important,
>> they
>> define the messageID explicitly.
>> About your encryption scenario, if determining the "SAME MESSAGE" is 
>> important to me, then I have to decrypt the messageID.  And if I 
>> cannot decrypt it, I shouldn't process the message.
>> Rgds, Ricky
>> At 12:45 PM 12/5/2003 -0600, Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler) wrote:
>>> I'm not an expert here, and I was mostly trying to capture
>> the sense of
>>> a conversation.  However, I believe that several people
>> agreed that it
>>> is, indeed, up to B and C to participate in this decision,
>> and that the
>>> "application" envisaged includes both sender and receiver.  This was

>>> explicitly stated, I believe, by both David Booth and at least one 
>>> other person, I've forgotten whom.
>>> About the messageID -- does a SOAP message necessarily have one?  If

>>> the intermediary encrypts the message, including the ID, do you have

>>> the same messageID?  It seems to me, from listening and
>> participating
>>> in a certain amount of conversation trying to sharpen up the
>> concept of
>>> "same message" that this is a swamp.
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Ricky Ho [mailto:riho@cisco.com]
>>> Sent: Friday, December 05, 2003 10:49 AM
>>> To: Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler); www-ws-arch@w3.org
>>> Subject: Re: Intermediaries
>>> Can we use messageID to determine whether this is the "SAME"
>> message ?
>>> In other words, all other modification is insignificant.
>>> 1) Intermediary isn't the endpoint so it doesn't generate
>> new messages,
>>> so the message it send MUST have same messageID as some previous 
>>> messages it received.
>>> 2) Orchestration is the endpoint which produce or consume
>> messages, so
>>> the
>>> message it send MUST have different messageID from previous received

>>> messages
>>> Going back to your example, it is NOT up the B and C to
>> interprete the
>>> changes made by I differently.  The decision is completely
>> finalized by
>>> I.
>>> Best regards,
>>> Ricky
>>> At 09:44 AM 12/5/2003 -0600, Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler) wrote:
>>>> Here is some text that expresses my understanding of the sense of 
>>>> some of the telcon conversation about intermediaries.  Please use, 
>>>> modify or
>>>> ignor as seems appropriate.
>>>> It is useful to draw a distinction between situations
>> where messages
>>>> are passed through intermediaries and choreographies.  The
>> essential
>>>> issue is that an intermediary passes along a message that is 
>>>> essentially, or functionally, the same as it received.  If, on the 
>>>> other hand, the purpose or function of the message is
>> substantially
>>>> changed one should consider the situation to be a
>> choreography.  This
>>>> cannot be defined, however, in an entirely rigorous or black and 
>>>> white way -- one person's intermediary may legitimately be
>> considered
>>>> a choreography by others. Note that since an intermediary
>> can change
>>>> the message, for example by encrypting it or by adding ancillary 
>>>> information, it remains a judgment call whether those changes are 
>>>> significant and functional.  In addition, whether a service that 
>>>> passes
>>>> messages is considered an intermediary depends on
>> participants in the
>>>> entire chain of the message.  For example, if sender A
>> sends messages
>>>> through I, which modifies the messages, to receivers B and
>> C, B might
>>>> consider the modified message to be functionally unchanged
>> whereas C
>>>> might consider it to be different and take different
>> action because
>>>> of the modification.  In the first case I would be considered an 
>>>> intermediary, in the second it would not.
Received on Friday, 5 December 2003 15:36:14 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:41:09 UTC