Possible issue on definition of Intermediaries

All,

The current definition of SOAP Intermediaries in section 2.7.1 [1] takes 
into account only the case where the forwarding of the message is 
requested by one (or more) SOAP blocks or by the MEP.

I think that some SOAP nodes may decide to forward a SOAP message using 
other criteria. Nevertheless, I think that those nodes MUST act in the 
role of a SOAP intermediary. I think in particular that that might be 
the case for active intermediaries.

For example, I could have a generic SOAP client on my machine, which 
uses an HTTP binding to send SOAP messages. My machine is configured to 
send all outbound HTTP requests through a proxy which happens to be not 
only an HTTP proxy but also a SOAP node (which may be used for 
encrypting all outbound SOAP messages). Since my SOAP client doesn't 
know about this SOAP node, neither the MEP nor any SOAP block will 
request this SOAP node to forward my SOAP message. However, the SOAP 
node knows that it must forward my message.

Proposal
========

I think that a small change in section 2.7.1 would suffice to solve this 
problem by making clear that any SOAP node forwarding a message must act 
in the role of a SOAP intermediary.

<original>
The semantics of one or more SOAP blocks in a SOAP message, or the SOAP 
message exchange pattern used MAY request that the SOAP message be 
forwarded to another SOAP node on behalf of the initiator of the inbound 
SOAP message. In this case, the processing SOAP node acts in the role of 
a SOAP intermediary.
</original>

<proposal>
When a SOAP node forwards a SOAP message received from another SOAP 
node, it MUST acts in the role of a SOAP intermediary. Such forwarding 
may be requested by the semantics of one or more SOAP blocks in the SOAP 
message, by the SOAP message exchange pattern used or by any other means.
</proposal>

Comments ?

Hervé.

[1] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/1/10/11/soap12-part1.html#soapinter

Received on Wednesday, 3 April 2002 09:48:34 UTC