W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > April 2002

RE: Possible issue on definition of Intermediaries

From: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <henrikn@microsoft.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2002 13:48:49 -0700
Message-ID: <79107D208BA38C45A4E45F62673A434D07371733@red-msg-07.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "Herve Ruellan" <ruellan@crf.canon.fr>, <xml-dist-app@w3.org>

Is this not covered by the term "Active intermediaries"? I think this
was one of the important points agreed to in Cannes [2]. From [1] it

	In addition to the processing performed by
	forwarding intermediaries, active intermediaries
	undertake additional processing that may modify
	the outbound message in ways not described in the
	inbound message. That is, they may undertake
	processing not described by header blocks in the
	incoming message. The potential set of services
	provided by an active intermediary includes, but
	is not limited to: security services, annotation
	services, and content manipulation services.

>The current definition of SOAP Intermediaries in section 2.7.1 
>[1] takes 
>into account only the case where the forwarding of the message is 
>requested by one (or more) SOAP blocks or by the MEP.
>I think that some SOAP nodes may decide to forward a SOAP 
>message using 
>other criteria. Nevertheless, I think that those nodes MUST act in the 
>role of a SOAP intermediary. I think in particular that that might be 
>the case for active intermediaries.


[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xmlp-comments/2002Mar/0013.html
Received on Monday, 22 April 2002 16:48:55 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 22:01:19 UTC