[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: about "next" role/actor
Should we say anything about the use of "next" role/actor on RM headers?
> (Pete Wenzel) Line 98: Says "This specification addresses end-to-end reliability,
> and is not concerned with intermediaries." However, there is nothing to
> prevent someone targeting Reliability headers to "next" role/actor.
> This case should be explicitly forbidden, rather than left undefined.
The use of "next" seems inappropriate in general, as our model ignores intermediaries.
However I would not forbid this:
after all, the receiving party may have deployed several SOAP nodes to process incoming messages, the first one being supposed to handle reliability. So this may be a topology that is assumed between sender and receiver, even if an unlikely one. (E.g. we could imagine that there is a reliability contract between each pair of intermediaries.)
Proposal:
warn that reliability headers should not be targeted to SOAP intermediaries, unless it is the intent that the reliability contract precisely ends at the first intermediary.
Jacques
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]