RE: Issues to think about in the MOM

> All addresses impact the meaning of a message.

I am not convinced this is true in the general case. In some cases the interposition of an intermediary is completely orthogonal to the meaning of the message as it was intended by the service provider and the service user (so much so that they might both be completely unaware of its existence - see for example the case of intermediaries inserted after initial deployment for purposes like global monitoring of a system).

Ugo

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Baker [mailto:distobj@acm.org]
> Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2003 9:58 AM
> To: Ugo Corda
> Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Issues to think about in the MOM
> 
> 
> Hi Ugo,
> 
> On Thu, Nov 20, 2003 at 09:27:52AM -0800, Ugo Corda wrote:
> > Mark,
> > 
> > > > 3a. In effect, is an address that is used by a 
> transport mechanism part 
> > > > of the message or not?
> > > 
> > > Yes, and I believe that holds for both application and transport
> > > protocols.  So not only is the URI to which a SOAP 
> envelope is POSTed
> > > part of the message, but so are the IP and MAC addresses 
> (at least in
> > > the HTTP/TCP/Ethernet case).
> > 
> > Which address are we talking about? Is it the address of 
> the ultimate receiver? Is it the address of an intermediary 
> as expressed in a SOAP header? Is it the address of an 
> intermediary interposed by a transparent proxy (so that is 
> actually different than the HTTP address itself)?
> 
> Yes. 8-)
> 
> All addresses impact the meaning of a message.  My point is 
> simply that
> not all of them are in the SOAP envelope, and that's OK.
> 
> Mark.
>

Received on Thursday, 20 November 2003 13:09:35 UTC