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

Re: Issue 140 bogus?

From: Jean-Jacques Moreau <moreau@crf.canon.fr>
Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2001 14:57:24 +0200
Message-ID: <3BBDAE34.95E9F7AC@crf.canon.fr>
To: Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com
CC: "Williams Stuart" <skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, David Fallside <fallside@us.ibm.com>, "'Jacek Kopecky'" <jacek@idoox.com>, xml-dist-app@w3.org

Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com wrote:

> 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 Friday, 5 October 2001 08:58:02 UTC

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