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

RE: [AMG] intermediaries

From: Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 13:30:08 +0100 (MET)
To: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <frystyk@microsoft.com>
cc: <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.33.0103201123540.5181-100000@tarantula.inria.fr>
On Mon, 19 Mar 2001, Henrik Frystyk Nielsen wrote:

>
> Yves,
>
> I think what you are describing in this scenario is typically called a
> gateway or in some cases a reverse proxy (a term that I don't really
> like). You are right that it is an intermediary but it really is an

Well, yes and no, in the first transaction, S did act as a reverse proxy
(Mark, is reverse proxy used even if the protocol used are different on
both sids?) But in the second case, it will actually generate the real
reply according to the pieces received, it is then the real receiving XMLP
application.
If you want to keep it as an intermediary, then (as mentionned in 3.3) we
should allow it to modify/delete the payload.

> In a previous version of [1] which you can find at [2]. Node IV is an
> example of an application layer intermediary.

If you want to keep S (Nove IV) as an intermediary, then (as mentionned
in 3.3) we should allow it to modify/delete/regenerate the payload.

-- 
Yves Lafon - W3C
"Baroula que barouleras, au tiéu toujou t'entourneras."
Received on Tuesday, 20 March 2001 07:30:13 GMT

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