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

Re: Role of intermediary

From: Henry Lowe <hlowe@omg.org>
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 15:23:03 -0500
Message-Id: <4.1.20010120151923.00bb6470@emerald.omg.org>
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@akamai.com>, xml-dist-app@w3.org
Cc: Marwan Sabbouh <ms@mitre.org>
If it's useful for signature verification, etc., why not?
For source routing (i.e., the sender knows where it should 
go), doing "the next hop goes THERE" is not a bit deal.

Question is, is it useful?  There were a few cases sited 
where it would be.  Are there others?

Regards,
Henry
-------------------------------------
At 01:56 PM 01/19/2001 -0800, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>
>
>I hope not ;) 
>
>It would take some magic in the routing - you'd have to have
>something that says "the next hop goes THERE", where THERE is using a
>different protocol binding.
>
>I'm trying to write a little paper about intermediaries in XP, will
>hopefully clarify.
>
>Cheers,
>
>
>On Fri, Jan 19, 2001 at 04:39:34PM -0500, Marwan Sabbouh wrote:
>> I have this question to the group: Is there anything in the spec that 
>might prevent an intermediary for receiving incoming messages using one 
>protocol binding and forwarding them using another? 
>> 
>> Thanks.
>> Marwan
>
>-- 
>Mark Nottingham, Research Scientist
>Akamai Technologies (San Mateo, CA)
>
Received on Saturday, 20 January 2001 15:03:58 GMT

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