Mark Baker writes: > But about your original (quoted by Rich) point, "Indeed, I'd say that > the intermediary is responsible for ensuring that the 2nd hop binding > can faithfully implment the MEP used by the first hop", that's not > even the case for application protocols, as the job of some (proxy) > intermediaries is precisely to mediate between differents "MEPs" (in > the generic sense of the word). Good catch. I think, though, that in such a case the purpose of the proxy is to faithfully implement the semantics of the MEP used on the first hop, using the MEP of the second, and that's what I meant. The originating client presumably doesn't want to know that the proxy is there, in most cases. Therefore, its MEP contract better be honored. That's what I meant, but you're right that it can be achieved by mapping to other models beyond the first hop. Noah -------------------------------------- Noah Mendelsohn IBM Corporation One Rogers Street Cambridge, MA 02142 1-617-693-4036 --------------------------------------Received on Thursday, 19 January 2006 21:03:01 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 October 2009 08:42:04 GMT