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

RE: Issues to think about in the MOM

From: Ugo Corda <UCorda@SeeBeyond.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 10:50:49 -0800
Message-ID: <EDDE2977F3D216428E903370E3EBDDC9039586F8@MAIL01.stc.com>
To: "Mark Baker" <distobj@acm.org>
Cc: <www-ws-arch@w3.org>

> Yes, I agree, but that address isn't part of the message.

Could you please clarify which types of addresses are part of a message and which ones are not? Given the following list of possible intermediary addressing mechanisms, which ones of the associated addresses do you think are part of the message:

1. IP address interception (e.g., "transparent proxies")
2. DNS address interception/redirection (e.g., Akamai, "virtual hosting")
3. HTTP proxy configuration (and autoconfiguration...)
4. IP routing interception (e.g., firewalls)
5. HTTP redirection (Status code 30x)
6. SOAP routing / redirection  (e.g., WS-Routing, WS-Addressing)
7. WSDL-based extensions
8. Using application-specific semantics

Ugo

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Baker [mailto:distobj@acm.org]
> Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2003 10:35 AM
> To: Ugo Corda
> Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Issues to think about in the MOM
> 
> 
> On Thu, Nov 20, 2003 at 10:09:34AM -0800, Ugo Corda wrote:
> > > All addresses impact the meaning of a message.
> > 
> > I am not convinced this is true in the general case. In 
> some cases the interposition of an intermediary is completely 
> orthogonal to the meaning of the message as it was intended 
> by the service provider and the service user (so much so that 
> they might both be completely unaware of its existence - see 
> for example the case of intermediaries inserted after initial 
> deployment for purposes like global monitoring of a system).
> 
> You mean that the address of this intermediary isn't relevant?  Yes, I
> agree, but that address isn't part of the message.
> 
> Sorry, I guess that's what you meant by the transparent proxy case in
> your previous message.  I didn't understand what you meant by it when
> I responded.
> 
> FWIW, there's also more complexity here with this with respect to
> addresses not in the message affecting the meaning, viz a viz HTTP 1.0
> permitting URI short hand and the need for the Host header in HTTP 1.1
> to fix that (i.e.  make it self-descriptive so that virtual hosting
> could be supported).  But I was just talking about the 
> self-descriptive
> case.
> 
> Mark.
> 
Received on Thursday, 20 November 2003 13:50:50 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 3 July 2007 12:25:23 GMT