RE: Intermediaries - various cases

It's also interesting to read Jacek Kopecky's comment in issue#2:

"In some cases putting the target URI in the envelope may be undesirable
(security considerations, for example) or even impossible (when the source
does not know/care  where exactly the message goes after reaching some
intermediary)."

It sounds like the second case that Jacek mentions is the pub/sub one. If
that is true, then he is thinking of the pub/sub node as an intermediary.

Ugo

-----Original Message-----
From: Ugo Corda [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Friday, September 27, 2002 12:01 PM
To: 'Mark Baker'
Cc: '[email protected]'
Subject: RE: Intermediaries - various cases



>> But is it possible to objectively identify this transfer contract?
>Sure, it's between the initial sender and the specified ultimate
>recipient.

>"ultimate" is a deceptive word in the gateway case.  I believe it refers
>to the the ultimate recipient as specified by the initial sender.  This
>is consistent with SOAP 1.2's use of the word, AFAICT.  It also relates
>to issue #2;

But issue #2 is exactly about the fact that SOAP 1.2 does not provide any
explicit mechanism for specifying the ultimate recipient. (Of course I can
always define a SOAP extension that provides that, but it does not seem to
be part of the basic spec).

Ugo