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: Tue, 09 Dec 2003 14:23:47 +0100
To: "Amelia A. Lewis" <alewis@tibco.com>
Cc: WS-Description WG <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1070976227.2076.165.camel@localhost>

Amy,

I was wondering about the case where a service providing an operation
that may result in faults is configured so that no faults are sent
(presumably for security reasons). I don't think that the WSDL of the
service should change because of this policy.

                   Jacek Kopecky

                   Systinet Corporation
                   http://www.systinet.com/




On Mon, 2003-12-08 at 16:14, Amelia A Lewis wrote:
> Jack, I don't see why this *should* be allowed, given the ruleset. 
> There's a different ruleset for no-fault.
> 
> Amy!
> On Mon, 08 Dec 2003 15:14:54 +0100
> Jacek Kopecky <jacek.kopecky@systinet.com> wrote:
> 
> > 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
> > 
Received on Tuesday, 9 December 2003 08:23:49 GMT

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