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

Re: ADDR: Addressing discussion

From: Jean-Jacques Moreau <moreau@crf.canon.fr>
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 17:15:32 +0100
Message-ID: <3A9146A3.7204D475@crf.canon.fr>
To: Martin Gudgin <marting@develop.com>
CC: XML Protocol Comments <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
I am having difficulties dissociating the notion of "targeting" from that of

According to your own definition, targeting could be at "a particular software
agent on a particular node". If the target is so clearly identified as residing
"on a particular node", it probably means the message has to be routed through
that "node", otherwise the agent will miss it. As a result, the route has to
include all the nodes that are targeted by an XMLP block.

Conversely, I cannot see why a node would be part of a route, unless that node
was being targeted by an XMLP block, or the node was a transport intermediary.
Out of two, only the latter seems to  mandates the notion of route, since the
other aspect is already covered by targeting.

What am I missing?


Martin Gudgin wrote:

> With respect to intermediaries there has been some discussion about
> addressing such intermediaries. This mail is intended to stimulate
> discussion of this term in order to come up with a suitable defintion that
> we can all use. So, here goes;
> Premise: Addressing of intermediaries comes in two parts;
> 1.    Routing. Ensuring the message goes via the a set of nodes on its way
> from sender to ultimate receiver
> 2.    Targeting. Ensuring that parts of the message are processed by a
> particular software agent.
> Routing could be implicit ( configuration based, perhaps ) or explicit (
> sender says go to A, then B, then C ) or ??? ( suggestions please )
> Targeting could be at;
> a)    a particular software agent on a particular node
> b)    a particular software agent on one of a set of nodes
> c)    a class of software agent on one of a set of nodes
> d)    others I've not thought of yet, suggestions?
> Many of us ( myself included ) think this is all bound up in the discussion
> of path and whether XML Protocol has explicit support for such a notion. The
> thread 'Thoughts on path and intermediaries'[1] may provide useful
> background to this discussion for some people as may the whole 'Intermediary
> discussion' thread'[2]. I would also recommend people read Mark Nottingham's
> treatment of intermediaries[3,4] if they have not already done so.
> Note this message is not saying the XML Protocol must support either or both
> Routing and Targeting nor that XML Protocol must or must not support the
> notion of path. It is merely intended to stimulate discussion.
> Regards
> Gudge
> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2001Feb/0072.html
> [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2001Feb/0002.html
> [3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2001Feb/0026.html
> [4]
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2001Feb/att-0026/01-xp_inte
> rmediaries.html
Received on Monday, 19 February 2001 11:16:17 UTC

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