- From: Yuhichi Nakamura <NAKAMURY@jp.ibm.com>
- Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 19:49:39 +0900
- To: "Jean-Jacques Moreau" <moreau@crf.canon.fr>
- Cc: "'xml-dist-app@w3.org'" <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
According to your model, the initial path specified by the sender can be modified by intermediaries. Based on this idea, intermediaries should be able to modify the response path, that is, the reverse path in your term. In my example, the sender side gateway "modifies" the reverse path so as to forward the response message to the intermeiary in Intranet. I think this is a natural extention of your idea, and organizes a symmetric structure. Make sense? >Yuhichi Nakamura wrote: >> [...] >> For the first comment, I would restate my question: if there is an >> intermediary BEFORE the gateway, MUST it be recored in the path record? The >> company who has the intial sender, the gateway, and the added intermediary >> would not like to give the address of the intermediary because it is located >> in their intranet. >> [...] >Ah, I see what you mean! Yes, you are right, this is an argument for NOT >recording the whole route. Does that mean that, on the way back, the message >will NOT go through the intermediary at all? >Jean-Jacques. > Yuhichi Nakamura IBM Research, Tokyo Research Laboratory Tel: +81-46-215-4668 FAX: +81-46-273-7428
Received on Thursday, 15 March 2001 07:31:41 UTC