Re: Untargetted blocks (was Re: Must understand mustUnderstand proposal)

Hugo Haas wrote:
> 
> * Jean-Jacques Moreau <moreau@crf.canon.fr> [2001-05-09 11:38+0200]
> > But then I think we have an issue with "anonymous" blocks, ie blocks which are
> > not targeted at any specific intermediary, nor the final destination, but which
> > contain information that can be factored out and be referenced by other blocks;
> > examples: a digital signature, credentials, a photograph. If, by default,
> > untargeted (header) blocks are targeted at the ultimate destination,
> > "anonymous" blocks are out.
> >
> > Henrik, "anonymous blocks" sounds like a candidate for the issues list.
> 
> In the abstract model draft[1] dated 27 March 2001, section 4.1 reads:
> 
>     4. There are reserved actor URI's with special significance
>        (actual path to be determined):
>        http://.../none    // an untargeted block (may be referenced by
>        other blocks)
> 
>        SOAP forces the actor for body entries to be the final
>        processor.  Untargeted blocks (http://.../none) have no
>        correlate in SOAP.
> 
> This was removed in the 30 March 2001 version[2]:
> 
>     Changes from Draft of 27th March 2001
>   [..]
>     4. Replaced section 4.1 (now section 4.2) with new text from Mark
>        Jones
> 
> I have seen discussion[3] between Mark and yourself about these
> untargetted/anonymous blocks, but I could not find why they
> disappeared. Could somebody point me to an explanation?
> 
I'm not sure why the "http://.../none" was originally removed but I
think you could get the desired "anonymous block" functionality by using
a SOAP actor attribute with *any* value that isn't recognised by an
intermediary or the final destination provided the mustUnderstand
attribute has a value of "0".

I guess the question is whether we should define a standard actor URI
for this purpose or not ?

Marc.

--
Marc Hadley <marc.hadley@sun.com>

Received on Wednesday, 9 May 2001 07:44:54 UTC