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 19:49:39 +0900
To: "Jean-Jacques Moreau" <moreau@crf.canon.fr>
Cc: "'xml-dist-app@w3.org'" <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Message-ID: <OF552A2008.F36A9BE4-ON49256A10.003AC446@LocalDomain>

According to your model, the initial path specified by the sender can be
modified by
intermediaries.  Based on this idea, intermediaries should be able to
modify the response path,
that is, the reverse path in your term.  In my example, the sender side
gateway "modifies"
the reverse path so as to forward the response message to the intermeiary
in Intranet.
I think this is a natural extention of your idea, and organizes a symmetric
Make sense?

>Yuhichi Nakamura wrote:
>> [...]
>> 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?
>> company who has the intial sender, the gateway, and the added
>> would not like to give the address of the intermediary because it is
>> in their intranet.
>> [...]
>Ah, I see what you mean! Yes, you are right, this is an argument for NOT
>recording the whole route. Does that mean that, on the way back, the
>will NOT go through the intermediary at all?

Yuhichi Nakamura
IBM Research, Tokyo Research Laboratory
Tel: +81-46-215-4668
FAX: +81-46-273-7428
Received on Thursday, 15 March 2001 07:31:41 UTC

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