RE: Issue 146 proposed resolution

>This seems problematic to me, because it doesn't seem to match 
>the rules 
>we've set for what it means to act in a role.  We say very clearly in 
>chapter 2 that, if you act in the anonymous role, you MUST 
>process bodies, 
>and we strongly imply that you are the endpoint (as opposed to an 
>intermediary.)

I think it does. The important thing is that it says "*if* you act...".
In this case, the party who the sender thinks is the ultimate
destination decides to offload the processing to another node. In other
words, the *intended* ultimate destination decides not to act in the
role of the ultimate destination. This may not only be a sensible thing
to do in cases like dealing with front-ends but there are many other
scenarios where this can happen as well.
 
Another formulation is like this: "One knows who the ultimate
destination is once the message gets there but not necessarily before."
Given that a SOAP node can decide its role on a per message basis, I
don't think this is inconsistent with the current processing model. The
proposed text was just an attempt of clarifying the current model.

Henrik