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

Re: Issues to think about in the MOM

From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2003 08:14:24 -0500
To: Paul Denning <pauld@mitre.org>
Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org
Message-ID: <20031125081424.O23375@www.markbaker.ca>

Because of the authoritative nature of redirection, proxies shouldn't be
doing it, only reverse proxies and servers.  Proxies should probably be
using routing in that case you describe.

That doesn't mean you can't do it, but it's why I responded that HTTP
redirection wasn't an intermediary scenario.

Mark.

On Thu, Nov 20, 2003 at 03:41:10PM -0500, Paul Denning wrote:
> 
> At 02:51 PM 2003-11-20, Mark Baker wrote:
> > > 5. HTTP redirection (Status code 30x)
> >
> >Well, that's not technically an intermediary scenario, as the redirect
> >is a result of the message reaching the ultimate receiver.  But the URI
> >of the resource producing the redirect is part of the message, if that's
> >what you mean.
> 
> Try this in for size ...
> 
> An HTTP proxy that is somewhat aware of SOAP.  If it detects POST with 
> Content-type: application/soap+xml, it redirects the sender to a SOAP 
> intermediary, which knows more about processing the SOAP message than the 
> HTTP proxy.  The SOAP intermediary enforces a policy that says all outgoing 
> SOAP messages must have a dsig of the body signed by some set of authorized 
> signers.  So, upon redirection to the SOAP intermediary, it looks at SOAP 
> header blocks, and if an appropriate dsig is not present, it redirects to 
> another SOAP intermediary that can append the dsig (perhaps after human 
> review) and then forward the message on its merry way.
> 
> Paul
> 
> 

-- 
Mark Baker.   Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.        http://www.markbaker.ca
Received on Tuesday, 25 November 2003 08:17:43 GMT

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