- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@akamai.com>
- Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2001 18:35:53 -0800
- To: Mark Baker <mark.baker@canada.sun.com>
- Cc: Andrew Layman <andrewl@microsoft.com>, xml-dist-app@w3.org, mmurata@trl.ibm.co.jp
On Wed, Jan 03, 2001 at 12:05:03PM -0500, Mark Baker wrote: > > Another reason for introducing specialized media types is proxy > > servers. If we have a specialized media type for SOAP/XP, proxy > > servers can easily take some actions for SOAP messages. If this is > > useful, we need a specialied media type for SOAP. > > Right. I believe that we should try to ensure HTTP-only intermediaries > can participate in an XP (or SOAP) processor route (or at least not foul > it up). Hmm, sounds like a new requirement to me; > > "XP should ensure that using non-XP-aware application level > intermediaries in a chain of XP processors (e.g. an HTTP-only proxy > between XP-over-HTTP intermediaries), should not interfere with the > end-to-end contract of that chain." R803 implies the ability to interpose a non-processing intermediary with no ill effect (i.e., the message will be opaque to the intermediary): XML Protocol must not preclude the use of transport bindings that define transport intermediary roles such as store-and-forward, proxy and gateway. -- Mark Nottingham, Research Scientist Akamai Technologies (San Mateo, CA)
Received on Wednesday, 3 January 2001 21:35:57 UTC