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

Re: Revised proposed text for intermediary

From: Hugo Haas <hugo@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2003 20:19:26 +0200
To: Ugo Corda <UCorda@SeeBeyond.com>
Cc: "Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler)" <RogerCutler@chevrontexaco.com>, www-ws-arch@w3.org
Message-ID: <20030716181926.GI3242@w3.org>
* Ugo Corda <UCorda@SeeBeyond.com> [2003-07-16 11:03-0700]
> The examples given (proxies and firewalls) sound like examples of
> transfer protocol-level intermediaries rather than message-level
> intermediaries (e.g. HTTP intermediaries instead of SOAP
> intermediaries). Is that our intent?
> 
> SOAP part 1 (the one defining SOAP intermediaries) does not mention
> proxies or firewalls at all.
> SOAP part 2 refers to HTTP proxies "acting between the SOAP nodes" (i.e.
> not an example of SOAP intermediary).

A SOAP node could act as a firewall inspecting messages and taking
decisions based on the content of the messages, and the definition of
proxy in the glossary talks about nodes, i.e. message-level concepts.
As I was trying to illustrate active intermediaries, I thought that
those would bring clarity as they usually are well-known things.

However your email suggests that they don't, so maybe we should just
use the examples from the SOAP 1.2 spec:

  The potential set of services provided by an active SOAP
  intermediary includes, but is not limited to: security services,
  annotation services, and content manipulation services.

Regards,

Hugo

-- 
Hugo Haas - W3C
mailto:hugo@w3.org - http://www.w3.org/People/Hugo/

Received on Wednesday, 16 July 2003 14:19:27 GMT

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