- From: Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler) <RogerCutler@chevrontexaco.com>
- Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2003 10:49:59 -0500
- To: "Hugo Haas" <hugo@w3.org>
- cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org
I think that is far better. It may well have exactly the same intent, but I think it is much clearer. -----Original Message----- From: Hugo Haas [mailto:hugo@w3.org] Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2003 9:52 AM To: Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler) Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org Subject: Re: Revised proposed text for intermediary [ Removed w3c-wsa-editors ] * Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler) <RogerCutler@chevrontexaco.com> [2003-07-16 09:33-0500] > It may have been explained in a previous thread, but I really don't > understand "A message may be intended for an intermediary, or may be > transparently processed by one." I think that this should be > clarified. Apparently there is a distinction between "intended for" > and "ultimate message receiver", but that distinction is not clear to > me. This is referring to intermediaries which may be doing some transparent processing of the message, i.e. the message was not explicitly targeted to it but a firewall inspects, possibly processes, and then forwards (or maybe not) the message to the next agent on the message path. Maybe this sentence should be replaced by a more descriptive one, such as: Certain intermediaries may be explicitly targeted by the original message senders. Others may be processing the message transparently, without the message sender or receiver's knowledge, intent or consent; examples of such intermediaries include transparent proxies or firewalls. Does this make sense? Regards, Hugo -- Hugo Haas - W3C mailto:hugo@w3.org - http://www.w3.org/People/Hugo/
Received on Wednesday, 16 July 2003 11:58:04 UTC