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

Re: Thoughts about path and intermediaries

From: Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 15:42:53 +0100 (MET)
To: marwan sabbouh <ms@mitre.org>
cc: <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.33.0102141437190.16688-100000@tarantula.inria.fr>
On Wed, 14 Feb 2001, marwan sabbouh wrote:

> orthogonal way.  That is, it should be possible for a sender to send the
> envelope without knowing a priori the path it will traverse.  That leads
> me to believe that we should use the word targetable instead of
> addressable in the defi nition of intermediaries.

Linking that with [1], the path may be a mix of implicit and explicit
path, you may want to explicit a path to avoid doing discovery to go
through a serie of firewall, for example, but you may hit some other
intermediaries. Some intermediaries may be targetable (thanks marwan for
this wording), especially if they need specific data to operate, like
2/ would be no, unless more data is needed for processing, there is no
   need to have the explicit path (unless you want to count them, for
   hops-limited messages -> see ping)
3/ yes, as the implicit path would be explicited there to require more
   data for processing
4/ no, if the XML Protocol layer is not aware of this, the application
   layer should have the same behaviour there.
5/ If needed yes (for user interaction during auth for example), but if
   is hidden by the XML Protocol layer, it is also fine as long as the
   relevant information is returned to the upper layer.

So I am almost in sync with Gugde here (expect the last two) ;)

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2001Feb/0082.html

Yves Lafon - W3C
"Baroula que barouleras, au tiéu toujou t'entourneras."
Received on Wednesday, 14 February 2001 09:43:01 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 22:01:12 UTC