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

RE: Revised proposed text for intermediary

From: Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler) <RogerCutler@chevrontexaco.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2003 10:49:59 -0500
Message-ID: <7FCB5A9F010AAE419A79A54B44F3718E025D8716@bocnte2k3.boc.chevrontexaco.net>
To: "Hugo Haas" <hugo@w3.org>
cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org

I think that is far better.  It may well have exactly the same intent,
but I think it is much clearer.

-----Original Message-----
From: Hugo Haas [mailto:hugo@w3.org] 
Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2003 9:52 AM
To: Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler)
Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org
Subject: Re: Revised proposed text for intermediary


[ Removed w3c-wsa-editors ]

* Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler) <RogerCutler@chevrontexaco.com>
[2003-07-16 09:33-0500]
> It may have been explained in a previous thread, but I really don't 
> understand "A message may be intended for an intermediary, or may be 
> transparently processed by one."  I think that this should be 
> clarified. Apparently there is a distinction between "intended for" 
> and "ultimate message receiver", but that distinction is not clear to 
> me.

This is referring to intermediaries which may be doing some transparent
processing of the message, i.e. the message was not explicitly targeted
to it but a firewall inspects, possibly processes, and then forwards (or
maybe not) the message to the next agent on the message path.

Maybe this sentence should be replaced by a more descriptive one, such
as:

  Certain intermediaries may be explicitly targeted by the original
  message senders. Others may be processing the message transparently,
  without the message sender or receiver's knowledge, intent or
  consent; examples of such intermediaries include transparent proxies
  or firewalls.

Does this make sense?

Regards,

Hugo

-- 
Hugo Haas - W3C
mailto:hugo@w3.org - http://www.w3.org/People/Hugo/
Received on Wednesday, 16 July 2003 11:58:04 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 3 July 2007 12:25:21 GMT