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

Re: Possible issue on definition of Intermediaries

From: Jean-Jacques Moreau <moreau@crf.canon.fr>
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2002 10:03:22 +0200
Message-ID: <3CC5154A.FC837E58@crf.canon.fr>
To: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <henrikn@microsoft.com>
CC: Herve Ruellan <ruellan@crf.canon.fr>, xml-dist-app@w3.org

I think the issue is somewhat different. The text you are quoting (i.e.
section 2.7.3 "Active Intermediaries") is fine. However, the introductory
section for intermediaries (section 2.7.1 "SOAP Intermediaries"), which
covers _both_ forwarding and active intermediaires, says:

     "The semantics of one or more SOAP header blocks in a SOAP
     message, or the SOAP message exchange pattern used MAY require
     that the SOAP message be forwarded to another SOAP node on behalf
     of the initiator of the inbound SOAP message. In this case, the
     processing SOAP node acts in the role of a SOAP intermediary."

which I think rules out active intermediaries, since they are precisely
meant to process messages _even if_ no "SOAP header block" nor "the SOAP MEP
used" require that "the message be forwarded". This is what Hervé was trying
to point out, I believe.

I would suggest that:

  1. We move the 1st paragraph of section 2.7.1 at the top of section 2.7.2.
  2. In that paragraph, we s/SOAP intermediary/SOAP forwarding intermediary/
  3. We move the 2nd paragraph of section 2.7.1 at the end of section 2.7.0
  4. We remove section 2.7.1 entirely (which is effectely achieved by the 1.
     and 3. above)

What do you think?


Henrik Frystyk Nielsen wrote:

> 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
> says:
>         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.
> Henrik
> [1]
> http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/2/04/11/soap12-part1-1.86.html#activeint
> er
> [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xmlp-comments/2002Mar/0013.html
Received on Tuesday, 23 April 2002 04:05:42 UTC

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