- From: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <henrikn@microsoft.com>
- Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 18:18:00 -0800
- To: <Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com>
- Cc: <skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
>This seems problematic to me, because it doesn't seem to match >the rules >we've set for what it means to act in a role. We say very clearly in >chapter 2 that, if you act in the anonymous role, you MUST >process bodies, >and we strongly imply that you are the endpoint (as opposed to an >intermediary.) I think it does. The important thing is that it says "*if* you act...". In this case, the party who the sender thinks is the ultimate destination decides to offload the processing to another node. In other words, the *intended* ultimate destination decides not to act in the role of the ultimate destination. This may not only be a sensible thing to do in cases like dealing with front-ends but there are many other scenarios where this can happen as well. Another formulation is like this: "One knows who the ultimate destination is once the message gets there but not necessarily before." Given that a SOAP node can decide its role on a per message basis, I don't think this is inconsistent with the current processing model. The proposed text was just an attempt of clarifying the current model. Henrik
Received on Wednesday, 14 November 2001 21:18:57 UTC