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

RE: Issue 140 bogus?

From: <Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2001 22:44:51 -0400
To: "Williams, Stuart" <skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: David Fallside <fallside@us.ibm.com>, "'Jacek Kopecky'" <jacek@idoox.com>, xml-dist-app@w3.org
Message-ID: <OFBAB1B822.DC67DA75-ON85256ADA.0078CB5D@lotus.com>
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 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 22:01:16 UTC