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

  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?



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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:41:08 UTC