Re: SOAP intermediary - issue 70 (cont'd)

Henrik, with respect, we've been there before, and Doug's point[1-3] was
exactly that an intermediary may not forward messages, and hence may not be
a SOAP sender[4]. My understanding is that this was also Mark's POV[5].

Jean-Jacques.

[1]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-protocol-wg/2001Oct/0007.html
[2]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-protocol-wg/2001Oct/0058.html
[3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2001Oct/0167.html
[4]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-protocol-wg/2001Oct/0059.html
[5]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-protocol-wg/2001Oct/0011.html

Henrik Frystyk Nielsen wrote:

> I don't think we can drop the notion that an intermediary is both a
> sender and a receiver:
>
> "A SOAP intermediary is both a SOAP sender and a SOAP receiver,
> target-able from with a SOAP message..."
>
> The important thing about an intermediary is that it acts on behalf of
> another SOAP node. I think that is stated slightly implicit in terms of
> initial sender and ultimate recipient but can live with it.
>
> >"A SOAP intermediary is a SOAP receiver, target-able from with
> >a SOAP message, that is neither the intial SOAP sender nor the
> >ultimate receiver of that message. It processes a SOAP message
> >according to the SOAP processing model. A consequence of
> >processing is that the SOAP message is sent further along the
> >SOAP message path to the next SOAP node."
>
> Henrik