Re: Addressing within envelope or binding-specific?

I am concerned that the address of the client be lost as a request
traverses multiple intermediaries that uses different protocol binding. 
That is why I advocate a mechanism to carry a client URI or address in a
request.  The client or an intermediary may fill this entry.

marwan

Scott Isaacson wrote:
> 
> >>> <Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com> 03/16/01 03:20PM >>>
> >Jean-Jacque Moreau suggests:
> >
> >>> not just allocate a service URI to the
> >>> endpoint/receiver, but also allocate one
> >>> to the sender
> >
> >Maybe, but I think there may be situations in which a sender doesn't in
> >any useful sense know its own name, but in which the binding knows the
> >return path implicitly.  As we have seen on the web with NAT and other
> >protocols, not all clients have useful IP addresses or DNS names, for
> >example.  I think it should be possible to send an XMLP request/response
> >from these.  Of course, you could fake out a return address, but the point
> >is that in certain cases it really is the binding and underlying transport
> >that do the correlation and routing.
> 
> Agreed, as long as their is a common place where the sender name could go.
> It should be optional, but should be consistently there, and by "faked out" I
> assume you mean some "null" or "empty" or "unknown" or "anonymous" type
> special names that could be used in place of a real name.
> 
> Scott
> 
> > <snip/>