Re: Action item - Part 2: SOAP request-response, response, request-optional-response ...

Mark Baker writes:

> But about your original (quoted by Rich) point, "Indeed, I'd say that
> the intermediary is responsible for ensuring that the 2nd hop binding
> can faithfully implment the MEP used by the first hop", that's not
> even the case for application protocols, as the job of some (proxy)
> intermediaries is precisely to mediate between differents "MEPs" (in
> the generic sense of the word). 

Good catch.  I think, though, that in such a case the purpose of the proxy 
is to faithfully implement the semantics of the MEP used on the first hop, 
using the MEP of the second, and that's what I meant.  The originating 
client presumably doesn't want to know that the proxy is there, in most 
cases.  Therefore, its MEP contract better be honored.  That's what I 
meant, but you're right that it can be achieved by mapping to other models 
beyond the first hop.

Noah

--------------------------------------
Noah Mendelsohn 
IBM Corporation
One Rogers Street
Cambridge, MA 02142
1-617-693-4036
--------------------------------------