Are Relays out of scope?

Furniss, Peter wrote:

>Tom,
>
>Don't waste time on heretics like me :-)
>
>I don't think a store-and-forward relay is an intermediary in the soap
>sense. It's obviously an intermediary in a message queueing sense, but I
>would think it was an important (no, vital) element for some use cases.
>What if the real sending application and the real receiving application
>are never up at the same time ?  Or is that ruled out of scope by the
>intermediaries discussion.  If it is, apologies for wasting your time.
>
>Peter
>
>  
>
I think our idea of not dealing explicitly with intermediaries means it 
is an end to end protocol.

I send this to the list to see if anyone disagrees with my assessment of 
the relay situation.

Tom Rutt
WSRM chair

-- 
----------------------------------------------------
Tom Rutt		email: ; 
Tel: +1 732 801 5744          Fax: +1 732 774 5133