Would it make sense to say, in the normative specification, something along the lines of: "Except for next, and none, etc. this specification does not prescribe the criteria by which a given node determines the (possible empty) set of roles in which it acts on a given message. For example, implementations can base this determination on factors including, but not limited to: hardcoded choices in the implementation, information provided by the transport binding (e.g. the URI to which the message was physically delivered), configuration information made by users during system installation, etc. " We already have text, I believe (I'm on an airplane and can't easily check) that makes clear that nodes acting as the anonymous actor cannot further relay a message, and in that sense serve as an endpoint. I would fully expect that the request/response MEP, when specified, would indicate that responses typically originate from the node that acted in the anonymous role for the request. Sound about right? ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Noah Mendelsohn Voice: 1-617-693-4036 Lotus Development Corp. Fax: 1-617-693-8676 One Rogers Street Cambridge, MA 02142 ------------------------------------------------------------------------Received on Wednesday, 3 October 2001 22:51:23 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:04 GMT