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

Re: Thoughts about path and intermediaries

From: Jean-Jacques Moreau <moreau@crf.canon.fr>
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 15:57:21 +0100
Message-ID: <3A913450.4A5F5590@crf.canon.fr>
To: Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com
CC: xml-dist-app@w3.org
Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com wrote:

> In either case, maybe it's as simple as having a mustFollow header
> attribute that indicates (don't process me until you've processed (idref of
> other header)?

Isn't it equivalent to have the path defined as an explicit list of
intermediairies, or via the more implicit mustFollow attribute? After all, the
mustFollow attribute IS the ordering relationship that defines the path!

This being said, mustFollow has the advantage that it is a more compact form of
path, and that it gives more control to intermediaries (they become responsible
for choosing the blocks to process, and the next hop). However, this model
requires more processing at each node on the path, and may not work well for
all intermediaries (a high speed cache/firewall), or all messages (a 1000 block
message; hypothetical case?). It may also prevent some basic security checks,
like path signing (signing each individual mustFollow attribute is probably
unrealistic).

Jean-Jacques.
Received on Monday, 19 February 2001 09:58:12 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:58 GMT