W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-desc@w3.org > December 2003

Re: Question on action item

From: Jacek Kopecky <jacek.kopecky@systinet.com>
Date: Mon, 08 Dec 2003 15:14:54 +0100
To: "Amelia A. Lewis" <alewis@tibco.com>
Cc: WS Description List <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1070892894.8753.40.camel@localhost>

Amy, I don't think the text as quoted below permits a node to have a
security policy of never sending faults. There is a path available to
the node (target of the fault), but still the fault won't be delivered.
I thought the action meant to clarify that this is allowed.

Jacek

On Fri, 2003-12-05 at 18:30, Amelia A Lewis wrote:
> On reviewing my (or part2 editors') action item from October 23:
> 
> Part2_Editors to clarify wording in fault-replaces-message rule that a
> fault is GENERATED but not necessarily SENT.
> 
> I find the current text to be:
> 
> Any message, including the first, MAY trigger a fault message in
> response.  Each recipient MAY generate a fault message, and MUST
> generate no more than one fault for each triggering message.  Each fault
> message has direction the reverse of its triggering message.  The fault
> message MUST be delivered to the originator of the message which
> triggered it.  If there is no path to this node, the fault MUST be
> discarded.
> 
> Sentence two seems to specify "generated".  Sentences four and five
> together seem to clarify that, though generated, the fault may not
> necessarily be sent.
> 
> I find the action item in minutes for October 23, a teleconference I
> apparently missed due to CO poisoning.  The minutes do not include
> alternative wording, and grepping my mailbox doesn't seem to turn any
> up.  If the above is not sufficiently clear, could someone help me out
> with why it isn't, and what would be clearer?  Thanks.
> 
> Amy!
Received on Monday, 8 December 2003 09:20:27 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:27 GMT