Re: Issue 146 proposed resolution

----- Original Message -----
From: "Henrik Frystyk Nielsen" <>
To: "Martin Gudgin" <>; <>;
"Doug Davis" <>
Cc: "Mark Baker" <>; <>;
Sent: Friday, November 16, 2001 6:29 AM
Subject: RE: Issue 146 proposed resolution

> Only as a mandatory extension

Yes, that's no big deal

> and only by effectively redeploying *all*
> existing SOAP nodes.

Talking to implementors leads me to believe that very few support actor
anyway, so we're essentially already in that situation.

> Without a targeting mechanism, it furthermore
> becomes very difficult to not just have passive forwarders.

So put the targeting mechanism in the extension. I think people have enough
on their plates getting a message from A to B let alone going via C, D and

> This all has
> a *very* high cost and will be fragile as a result.

Why would an extension be any more fragile than the current situation.

> We had this discussion a long time ago

Yes, I said then that I thought actor was underspecified and that
intermediaries was a can of worms we should not tackle in our first REC. I
think the number of issues that are currently related to
actor/intermediaries bears this out somewhat.

>- I would strongly recommend
> focusing on solving the outstanding issues of which there are plenty
> rather than going back in circles.

Oh, I'm focussed on solving issues. I just have different suggestions for
the solutions!



Received on Friday, 16 November 2001 10:25:38 UTC