Re: Issue 221 resolution text change

Jean Jacques Moreau writes;

>> I like the spirit, but wouldn't an implication 
>>be that intermediairies can no longer remove 
>> headers targeted to them, when they contain 
>> PIs? Isn't this in contradiction with the 
>> processing model?

Thanks, looks like we're closing in on a resolution. 

I don't think there's a problem with the processing model. We clearly say 
you SHOULD fault if you receive a PI.  The reason for the lattitude is 
essentially that you're relaying a header of no concern to you and not 
looking at it closely.  I agree we need to be careful with the case where 
it was addressed to you, and we have to document the rules for that very 
clearly.  Actually, I think the ambiguity is only in the case where you 
chose to "reinsert" a header, as it's in the case of relayed content that 
we've given lattitude.  I think that in all other cases, including just 
removing  a header, we've said "SHOULD fault", end of story.   In the case 
of a re-inserted header,  what about (at or near the sentence on 
re-inserting indistinguishable headers) "intermediaries SHOULD NOT 
reinsert headers that contained processing instructions but SHOULD 
instead, as described above(below), fault with a sender fault."

In other words, you MUST not insert new headers with PIs, you SHOULD NOT 
reinsert headers that were received with PIs, (and as we've more or less 
agreed) you SHOULD fault if you receive a message with a PI.  How's that?

------------------------------------------------------------------
Noah Mendelsohn                              Voice: 1-617-693-4036
IBM Corporation                                Fax: 1-617-693-8676
One Rogers Street
Cambridge, MA 02142
------------------------------------------------------------------

Received on Monday, 9 September 2002 10:50:18 UTC