about "next" role/actor

Title: 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