RE: Revised proposed text for intermediary

The examples given (proxies and firewalls) sound like examples of
transfer protocol-level intermediaries rather than message-level
intermediaries (e.g. HTTP intermediaries instead of SOAP
intermediaries). Is that our intent?

SOAP part 1 (the one defining SOAP intermediaries) does not mention
proxies or firewalls at all.
SOAP part 2 refers to HTTP proxies "acting between the SOAP nodes" (i.e.
not an example of SOAP intermediary).

Ugo

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hugo Haas [mailto:hugo@w3.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2003 9:28 AM
> To: Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler)
> Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Revised proposed text for intermediary
> 
> 
> * Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler) <RogerCutler@chevrontexaco.com> 
> [2003-07-16 10:49-0500]
> > I think that is far better.  It may well have exactly the 
> same intent,
> > but I think it is much clearer.
> 
> OK, here is version 3 which actually names those two types of
> intermediaries (as in SOAP 1.2[1]):
> 
>    There are two types of intermediaries:
>    - Forwarding intermediaries: the processing done by these agents
>      was explicitely requested in the message by the message sender.
>    - Active intermediaries: they are agents that undertake additional
>      processing of the message in ways not described or requested by
>      the message sender. This additional processing may be done
>      without the message sender or receiver's knowledge, intent or
>      consent; examples of such intermediaries include transparent
>      proxies or firewalls.
> 
> Hopefully, I won't have lost any of the clarity.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Hugo
> 
>   1. http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/REC-soap12-part1-20030624/#relaysoapmsg
> -- 
> Hugo Haas - W3C
> mailto:hugo@w3.org - http://www.w3.org/People/Hugo/
>

Received on Wednesday, 16 July 2003 14:03:17 UTC