RE: Intermediaries

Well, maybe it would be useful to summarize -- or perhaps harvest
something from these threads (and threadlets) you are talking about.

-----Original Message-----
From: www-ws-arch-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-arch-request@w3.org] On
Behalf Of Ugo Corda
Sent: Friday, December 05, 2003 3:59 PM
To: Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler); Champion, Mike; www-ws-arch@w3.org
Subject: RE: Intermediaries



Let's not forget we already had a long thread about gateways last year.
See the thread "Gateways" at
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-arch/2002Oct/thread.html.

Ugo

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-ws-arch-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-arch-request@w3.org]On
> Behalf Of Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler)
> Sent: Friday, December 05, 2003 1:52 PM
> To: Champion, Mike; www-ws-arch@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Intermediaries
> 
> 
> 
> Where do gateways fit into this?  Beyond the scope of intermediaries? 
> If so, what is the distinction that puts them outside the scope.
> 
> By "gateway" I have in mind, for example, a company that
> provides, as a
> service, the collecting of purchase requests from client companies and
> the sending of the required purchase request to vendors, 
> handling  along
> the way security, tracking, and so on.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-ws-arch-request@w3.org
> [mailto:www-ws-arch-request@w3.org] On
> Behalf Of Champion, Mike
> Sent: Friday, December 05, 2003 3:10 PM
> To: www-ws-arch@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Intermediaries
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler) 
> > [mailto:RogerCutler@chevrontexaco.com]
> > Sent: Friday, December 05, 2003 3:37 PM
> > To: Ugo Corda; Francis McCabe
> > Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org
> > Subject: RE: Intermediaries
> > 
> > 
> > Yes -- is it possible that the issues that you are trying to raise 
> > with respect to intermediaries are beyond a reasonable scope for the

> > present effort, given the practical limitations of time and 
> > personnel?
> 
> I for one am becoming less and less convinced that the idea of 
> "application defined equivalence" to distinguish intermediaries from 
> "regular" web services is productive.
> 
> I think it would be desireable to identify the various senses in which

> "intermediaries" is used in the web services context. As far as I can 
> tell, the only thing that distinguishes any kind of intermediary is 
> that it is both a message receiver and a message sender.  We have at 
> least the
> following:
> 
> "Underlying protocol" [I fear to say "transport"] intermediaries that 
> help move bits around efficiently, e.g. TCP/IP routers, HTTP proxies 
> and caches.
> 
> "message intermediaries" that perform some MOM-level service such as 
> gateways between HTTP and MQ, routers that send a message to the 
> geographically appropriate destination,  or perhaps those that handle 
> a protocol such as WS-ReliableMessaging.  These make sure that SOAP
> messages (as opposed to bits) are delivered to the correct ultimate
> receiver node.
> 
> "service intermediaries" provide higher-level services such as policy 
> enforcement.  WS-Security aware Firewalls are an obvious example, as 
> would be the SOAP Primer example of an intermediary that quietly 
> changes business class reservation requests to coach class if an
> application-level policy requires it.  
> 
> 
> 
>

Received on Friday, 5 December 2003 19:36:38 UTC