RE: Revised proposed text for intermediary

I think that would be better.

I am not saying that SOAP nodes cannot in principle act as firewalls or
proxies, but I think that people tend to think of proxies and firewalls
in terms of HTTP (also given the fact that the equivalent SOAP concepts
have not been thoroughly developed yet), which could generate confusion
when they read our document.

Ugo

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hugo Haas [mailto:hugo@w3.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2003 11:19 AM
> To: Ugo Corda
> Cc: Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler); www-ws-arch@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Revised proposed text for intermediary
> 
> 
> * Ugo Corda <UCorda@SeeBeyond.com> [2003-07-16 11:03-0700]
> > 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).
> 
> A SOAP node could act as a firewall inspecting messages and taking
> decisions based on the content of the messages, and the definition of
> proxy in the glossary talks about nodes, i.e. message-level concepts.
> As I was trying to illustrate active intermediaries, I thought that
> those would bring clarity as they usually are well-known things.
> 
> However your email suggests that they don't, so maybe we should just
> use the examples from the SOAP 1.2 spec:
> 
>   The potential set of services provided by an active SOAP
>   intermediary includes, but is not limited to: security services,
>   annotation services, and content manipulation services.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Hugo
> 
> -- 
> Hugo Haas - W3C
> mailto:hugo@w3.org - http://www.w3.org/People/Hugo/
>

Received on Wednesday, 16 July 2003 14:31:24 UTC