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

Re: Addressing within envelope or binding-specific?

From: marwan sabbouh <ms@mitre.org>
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 10:03:26 -0500
Message-ID: <3AB61FBE.900410FC@mitre.org>
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@akamai.com>
CC: Scott Isaacson <SISAACSON@novell.com>, moreau@crf.canon.fr, Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com, w3c-xml-protocol-wg@w3.org, xml-dist-app@w3.org
That is what we have to agree on.  I am not sure what the answer is.What
are the trade-offs between the two options?What are the trade-offs
between the two options?  I am tempted to say that we just  allow that.
This way, the specification can be written in a modular way.  On the on
the other hand, this may result in different vendors implementing the
same functionality in many different ways, unless some working group
address these issues.   .

Mark Nottingham wrote:
> 
> Is enabling intermediaries which do this one of the things we want to
> do 'out-of-the-box', or just allow?
> 
> On Mon, Mar 19, 2001 at 07:19:39AM -0500, marwan sabbouh wrote:
> > 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/>
> 
> --
> Mark Nottingham, Research Scientist
> Akamai Technologies (San Mateo, CA USA)
Received on Monday, 19 March 2001 10:03:35 GMT

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