- From: Henry Lowe <hlowe@omg.org>
- Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 15:23:03 -0500
- To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@akamai.com>, xml-dist-app@w3.org
- Cc: Marwan Sabbouh <ms@mitre.org>
If it's useful for signature verification, etc., why not? For source routing (i.e., the sender knows where it should go), doing "the next hop goes THERE" is not a bit deal. Question is, is it useful? There were a few cases sited where it would be. Are there others? Regards, Henry ------------------------------------- At 01:56 PM 01/19/2001 -0800, Mark Nottingham wrote: > > >I hope not ;) > >It would take some magic in the routing - you'd have to have >something that says "the next hop goes THERE", where THERE is using a >different protocol binding. > >I'm trying to write a little paper about intermediaries in XP, will >hopefully clarify. > >Cheers, > > >On Fri, Jan 19, 2001 at 04:39:34PM -0500, Marwan Sabbouh wrote: >> I have this question to the group: Is there anything in the spec that >might prevent an intermediary for receiving incoming messages using one >protocol binding and forwarding them using another? >> >> Thanks. >> Marwan > >-- >Mark Nottingham, Research Scientist >Akamai Technologies (San Mateo, CA) >
Received on Saturday, 20 January 2001 15:03:58 UTC