On Thursday, August 22, 2002, at 10:40 AM, Martin Gudgin wrote: >> >>> 221: I think the resolution is problematic. >>> >> Agree. > > OK, how should we proceed. This issue is closed as far as the WG is > concerned. > The only thing we can do is re-open the issue and state why. I did this for one of the other post LC issues and the resolution was changed - I can;t remember the issue number off hand. >> >>> 289: What does an intermediary do when it receives a fault? Is the >>> fault guaranteed to be passed on to the original sender ( >> or previous >>> intermediary)? >>> >> >> Since we don't indicate what happens when faults are >> generated in the first place, I think the most we can say is >> that intermediaries MAY forward fault messages. >> >> However, I am wondering whether this is not raising a deeper >> issue, which is how intermediaries forward response messages. >> I think sections 2.7.* are written from the POV of request >> messages; do they cover adequately response messages? > > Good question. What do the other editors think? > I think this is a deeper issue. Does the behaviour differ depending on whether the fault is due to something the intermediary did or a prior node in the message path ? Is there a difference between a request and response message as far as intermediaries are concerned ? How would an intermediary determine the difference ? Marc. -- Marc Hadley <marc.hadley@sun.com> XML Technology Center, Sun Microsystems.Received on Thursday, 22 August 2002 10:58:36 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 July 2008 08:08:44 GMT