- From: Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 13:45:30 +0100 (MET)
- To: Jean-Jacques Moreau <moreau@crf.canon.fr>
- cc: "Mark A. Jones" <jones@research.att.com>, "Marc J. Hadley" <marc.hadley@sun.com>, Ray Denenberg <rden@loc.gov>, Ray Whitmer <rayw@netscape.com>, Marwan Sabbouh <ms@mitre.org>, Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <frystyk@microsoft.com>, Stuart Williams <skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, David Fallside <fallside@us.ibm.com>, <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
On Tue, 13 Mar 2001, Jean-Jacques Moreau wrote: > I think there are cases when processed blocks should not be removed > from messages. For example, consider a message that goes through > several intermediaries, and that contains some form of identification > (user/password, certificate, digital signature, whatever), carried as > a block, and used by at least two intermediaries. It would be wrong > for the first intermediary to remove the block from the message, as it > is also needed by the second intermediary. In that case, targeting information should explicitely say that this particular block is intended for multiple processors. If a block has been added for a specific intermediary, and if it doesn't impact on the main one, then it can be safely removed (note that auth can have an impact on cacheability) -- Yves Lafon - W3C "Baroula que barouleras, au tiéu toujou t'entourneras."
Received on Tuesday, 13 March 2001 07:45:46 UTC