Re: Role of intermediary

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)
>