W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > August 2002

Intermediaries, faults, req/resp (was: Edtodo is now uptodate)

From: Jean-Jacques Moreau <moreau@crf.canon.fr>
Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 10:05:22 +0200
Message-ID: <3D69E142.8CCE712D@crf.canon.fr>
To: Marc Hadley <marc.hadley@sun.com>
CC: Martin Gudgin <mgudgin@microsoft.com>, W3C Public Archive <www-archive@w3.org>, Nilo Mitra <EUSNILM@am1.ericsson.se>, Noah Mendelson <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>, Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <henrikn@microsoft.com>

So Henrik seems to be saying this is out of scope and should be defined by
the corresponding routing/forwarding feature only, which sounds fine. Do
we want some additional text saying just that or is the spec ok as is?

Jean-Jacques.

Marc Hadley wrote:

> >>> 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.

Henrik wrote:

> >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?
>
> I think so: As we don't say anything about how the forwarding feature is
> defined for any SOAP messages other than stating that it is a feature,
> this would also apply to SOAP faults--they are just a certain type of
> SOAP messages.
>
Received on Monday, 26 August 2002 04:05:36 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 7 November 2012 14:17:22 GMT