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

Re: ARe: Abstract Model contribution for Intermediairies (repost)

From: Yuhichi Nakamura <NAKAMURY@jp.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 13:35:22 +0900
To: "'xml-dist-app@w3.org'" <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Message-ID: <OF93866569.5CC0EC2C-ON49256A10.0018AD9E@LocalDomain>

Jean-Jacques,
Thanks for your prompt reply.  The document I referred was Stuarts
Williams's one.
Sorry for bothering you.

For the first comment, I would restate my question: if there is an
intermediary
BEFORE the gateway, MUST it be recored in the path record?  The company
who has the intial sender, the gateway, and the added intermediary would
not like to give the address of the intermediary because it is located in
their intranet.

Best regards,

Yuhichi Nakamura
IBM Research, Tokyo Research Laboratory
Tel: +81-46-215-4668
FAX: +81-46-273-7428


From: "Jean-Jacques Moreau" <moreau@crf.canon.fr> on 2001/03/14 19:55

Please respond to "Jean-Jacques Moreau" <moreau@crf.canon.fr>

To:   Yuhichi Nakamura/Japan/IBM@IBMJP
cc:   "'xml-dist-app@w3.org'" <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Subject:  ARe: Abstract Model contribution for Intermediairies (repost)



Dear Yuhichi-san,

Yuhichi Nakamura wrote:

> For 5, assume that a sender sends a request via gateway.  Others should
> know the gateway address, but do not have to know the
> address of the sender application.  Even in that case, the sender address
> MUST be recorded in the path record?

No, this is not what I was suggesting. I think the sender should not count
as
an XMLP Intermediary; and so in your example only the address of the
gateway
would be recorded.

> For 6, this is very good restriction from implementation point of view.
> However, a response is replied directly from an ultimate
> receiver to the initial sender, according to "XML Abstract Processing
> Model" document.  Any idea?

I am not sure which document you are referring to. If you are referring to
Mark
Jones' "Abstract Model for Module Processing", then I don't think your
point is
specifically addressed.

If you are referring to Stuart Williams (et al) "Abstract Model", then I
think
you are misinterpreting what Stuart suggested. Stuart's intent was to allow
a
response to either come back directly, or through one or more
intermediaries,
hence the reason for the diagrams to look intentionally vague.

> Is there consensus how to address intermediaries (and handlers in the
> abstract model document)?

No, I do not think we have reached consensus yet. Mark Jones and I have
been
floating our proposals around to try to move the WG forward.

Thanks for your comments.

Jean-Jacques.
Received on Wednesday, 14 March 2001 23:35:36 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:59 GMT