W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > February 2001

Re: Thoughts about path and intermediaries

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@akamai.com>
Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2001 10:07:12 -0800
To: Martin Gudgin <marting@develop.com>
Cc: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <henrikn@microsoft.com>, "Williams, Stuart" <skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, Frystyk <frystyk@microsoft.com>, "Jean-Jacques Moreau (E-mail)" <moreau@crf.canon.fr>, "John Ibbotson (E-mail)" <john_ibbotson@uk.ibm.com>, "Krishna Sankar (E-mail)" <ksankar@cisco.com>, "Lynne Thompson (E-mail)" <Lynne.Thompson@unisys.com>, "Marc Hadley (E-mail)" <marc.hadley@uk.sun.com>, "Mark Baker (E-mail)" <mark.baker@Canada.Sun.COM>, Nick Smilonich <nick.smilonich@unisys.com>, "Oisin Hurley (E-mail)" <ohurley@iona.com>, "Scott Isaacson (E-mail)" <SISAACSON@novell.com>, "Yves Lafon (E-mail)" <ylafon@w3.org>, xml-dist-app@w3.org
Message-ID: <20010209100707.B9551@akamai.com>

I agree with Henrik (although strangely, I haven't received his
message yet).

Targeting without in-message routing is perfectly plausable; routing
can be supplied by the transport (through the URI, client
configuration of a proxy, etc.), by the application service layer
above the XMLP layer, an in-message routing convention that can be
specified later, as a Module, or combinations of them for multi-hop

The only requirement that this puts on implementations is that they
understand and honor targeting.

On Fri, Feb 09, 2001 at 05:30:13PM -0000, Martin Gudgin wrote:
> I guess the problem I have is that I don't understand how you can have
> targeting ( marking part of a message as requiring processing by a specific
> software entity ) without routing ( specifying ( some of ) the nodes the
> message must pass through on its way from sender to ultimate recipient ).
> If the XML Protocol layer doesn't know about routing then it doesn't know
> which nodes a message must pass through. How then can targetting happen at
> intermediary nodes if those intermediary nodes are never visited?
> Gudge
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Henrik Frystyk Nielsen" <henrikn@microsoft.com>
> To: "'Martin Gudgin'" <marting@develop.com>; "Williams, Stuart"
> <skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com>; "Frystyk" <frystyk@microsoft.com>; "Jean-Jacques
> Moreau (E-mail)" <moreau@crf.canon.fr>; "John Ibbotson (E-mail)"
> <john_ibbotson@uk.ibm.com>; "Krishna Sankar (E-mail)" <ksankar@cisco.com>;
> "Lynne Thompson (E-mail)" <Lynne.Thompson@unisys.com>; "Marc Hadley
> (E-mail)" <marc.hadley@uk.sun.com>; "Mark Baker (E-mail)"
> <mark.baker@Canada.Sun.COM>; "Nick Smilonich" <nick.smilonich@unisys.com>;
> "Oisin Hurley (E-mail)" <ohurley@iona.com>; "Scott Isaacson (E-mail)"
> <SISAACSON@novell.com>; "Yves Lafon (E-mail)" <ylafon@w3.org>
> Cc: <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
> Sent: Friday, February 09, 2001 4:19 PM
> Subject: RE: [AMG] Thoughts about path and intermediaries
> >
> > >Having spent some time thinking about this Stuart and I have
> > >come to the
> > >following conclusion;
> >
> > Isn't there really three options and not just two:
> >
> > 1) One can support targeting only
> >
> > 2) One can support targeting and routing
> >
> > 3) One can support neither
> >
> > Given that we have as part of our charter and several requirements
> > addressing intermediaries 3) doesn't sound interesting.
> >
> > However, it seems perfectly plausible to define a processing model that
> > takes into account targeting without actually defining routing. As an
> > example this is in fact what SOAP does. Once you have the targeting, it
> > appears that pretty much anything else including routing can be built on
> > top. Unless we can find proof that this is not the case then I would favor
> > 1).
> >
> > Henrik

Mark Nottingham, Research Scientist
Akamai Technologies (San Mateo, CA)
Received on Friday, 9 February 2001 13:07:46 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 22:01:11 UTC