W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > November 2001

Re: TBTF Intro text comment

From: <Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001 22:35:18 -0500
To: Raj Nair <rnair@cisco.com>
Cc: xml-dist-app@w3.org
Message-ID: <OFFFD0A8BF.E6C72020-ON85256B12.001391CA@lotus.com>
I think this requirement is more properly handled in the specifications 
for the end-to-end features.  Presumably,  the corresponding features are 
marked mustUnderstand to the intermediaries.  Either it doesn't understand 
at all, in which case mU fault,. or it understands but can't comply, in 
which case the feature spec can indicate the fault.  I think it's covered 
as is.  Thanks.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Noah Mendelsohn                                    Voice: 1-617-693-4036
Lotus Development Corp.                            Fax: 1-617-693-8676
One Rogers Street
Cambridge, MA 02142
------------------------------------------------------------------------







Raj Nair <rnair@cisco.com>
Sent by: xml-dist-app-request@w3.org
11/27/2001 09:59 PM

 
        To:     xml-dist-app@w3.org
        cc:     (bcc: Noah Mendelsohn/CAM/Lotus)
        Subject:        TBTF Intro text comment


In the section entitled "Introduction to the SOAP Binding Framework", para 
2:
The last statement allows different transports on different message hops.
However, in the case of an end-to-end security association an assumption 
is
made about the willingness of an intermediary to accept this message even 
if
it is unwilling or unable to do participate.

I propose adding the following text at the end of that paragraph:
An intermediary MUST generate a SOAP fault if it is not able to accept a
SOAP message without violating existing end-to-end conditions of the 
message.

---Raj
Received on Tuesday, 27 November 2001 22:46:10 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:05 GMT