[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [amqp] Review: AMQP Addressing Version 1.0 (WD10)
I changed this into âmessage recipientsâ and âintermediaries who forwardâ: The 'to' field of a message MAY contain a network endpoint. Note the 'to' field is part of the bare message which may be signed and cannot be modified by intermediaries. Any message recipient MUST ignore the network endpoint and not use it as a dispatch criterion, as access via different on-ramps
to the same AMQP address is equivalent. An intermediary that forwards messages MAY ignore the 'to' field and forward a message within its own network, or MAY connect to the 'to' field network address. How such intermediaries make this decision is out of scope of this specification;
they MAY use custom annotations, properties of the link or connection that received the message, or other mechanisms. The 'reply-to' field MAY contain a network endpoint. Message recipients and intermediaries SHOULD prioritize attempting to deliver replies over the same connection that through which the message was obtained. If this is impossible or fails, the response SHOULD be sent via an outbound connection
to the 'reply-to' network endpoint. From: amqp@lists.oasis-open.org <amqp@lists.oasis-open.org>
On Behalf Of Rob Godfrey Section 3.1 Protocol Schemes I think "AMQP WebSocket Binding [AMQPWS] endpoints MUST either be described with the standard ws (non-secure) or wss (secure, TLS) WebSocket schemes." would read more clearly as "AMQP
WebSocket Binding [AMQPWS]
endpoints MUST be described with the standard ws (non-secure) or wss (secure, TLS) WebSocket schemes." (i.e. remove 'either') Section 3.2.2 Message 'to' field Section 3.2.3 Message 'reply-to' and the Request Reply pattern In these sections we refer to notions of "receiver"s, "router"s and "server"s. These terms are introduced without definition. In section 3.2.2 in particular we have:
Any receiver MUST ignore the network endpoint and not use it as a dispatch criterion, as access via different on-ramps to the same AMQP address is equivalent.
A router MAY ignore the 'to' field and forward a message within its own network, or MAY connect to the 'to' field network address. How routers decide that is out of scope of this specification; they
MAY use custom annotations, properties of the link or connection that received the message, or other mechanisms.
which is specifying different behaviour of receivers and routers.
I think we need another working draft to resolve this before we can progress to CSPRD. -- Rob -- _____________________________________________________________________________ |
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]