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

Re: Role of intermediary

From: Michah Lerner <michah@att.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 20:13:48 -0500
Message-ID: <3A6E2C4C.AF448B3D@att.com>
To: xml-dist-app@w3.org
Mark's response to Marwan (Re: Role of intermediary) confirms the requirements or specification do not  preclude an intermediary from "receiving incoming messages using one protocol binding and
forwarding them using another".  R600, R604 and R608 make this more precise, and R612 identifies HTTP as the normative non-exclusive binding.  The composability requirement of section 4.4 as well as
R505 reinforce this because a priori knowledge should not be required by the endpoints.

However (there is always a however), the Charter (4.6 Protocol Bindings) warns of potential "semantic complications") with some protocol bindings.  Will the abstract model consider the practical
questions of different bindings between initial XP sender and ultimate XP receiver?  Are there specific use cases for example an SMTP(HTTP) sender with HTTP(SMTP) receiver?  What about the scenarios
of R502?

What prevents extra complexity (and problems) when endpoints bind to different protocols?

Thanks!

> Re: Role of intermediary
>
> From: Mark Needleman - DRA (mneedlem@dra.com)
> Date: Fri, Jan 19 2001
>
> *Next message: Mark Nottingham: "Re: Role of intermediary"
>
>    * Previous message: Marwan Sabbouh: "Role of intermediary"
>    * In reply to: Marwan Sabbouh: "Role of intermediary"
>    * Next in thread: Mark Nottingham: "Re: Role of intermediary"
>    * Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
>    * Other mail archives: [this mailing list] [other W3C mailing lists]
>    * Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]
>
>   ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 15:52:16 -0600 (CST)
> From: Mark Needleman - DRA <mneedlem@dra.com>
> To: Marwan Sabbouh <ms@mitre.org>
> cc: xml-dist-app@w3.org
> Message-ID: <Pine.OSF.3.95.1010119154939.30452M-100000@tourist.dra.com>
> Subject: Re: Role of intermediary
>
> Marwan
>
> I dont believe there is and i see the ability to do that as a legitimate
> and useful function
>
>
> Mark H Needleman
> Product Development Specialist - Standards
> Data Research Associates, Inc.
> 1276 North Warson Road
> P.O. Box 8495
> St Louis, MO 63132-1806
> USA
>
> Phone: 800 325-0888 (US/Canada)
>        314 432-1100 x318
> Fax: 314 993-8927
>
> Email: mneedleman@dra.com
>
>
> On Fri, 19 Jan 2001, 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
> >
>
>   ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>    * Next message: Mark Nottingham: "Re: Role of intermediary"
>    * Previous message: Marwan Sabbouh: "Role of intermediary"
>    * In reply to: Marwan Sabbouh: "Role of intermediary"
>    * Next in thread: Mark Nottingham: "Re: Role of intermediary"
>    * Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
>    * Other mail archives: [this mailing list] [other W3C mailing lists]
>    * Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]
Received on Tuesday, 23 January 2001 20:12:23 GMT

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