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

Re: TBTF Intro text comment

From: Raj Nair <rnair@cisco.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 06:56:17 -0500
Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20011128063956.00d8fc40@spector.cisco.com>
To: <Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com>
Cc: xml-dist-app@w3.org
The feature I am considering is an end-to-end security association that an
intermediary may not be able to participate in. Also, the feature may simply
be a property of the underlying transport. Thus, it becomes a mustUnderstand
implicitly. I wanted to make sure that there is a way for an intermediary to
generate an mU fault when there are transport-related incompatibility. I
am happy if it goes into and end-to-end features portion of the spec ...
except that there are tranport implications.
---Raj

At 10:35 PM 11/27/01, Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com wrote:
>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 Wednesday, 28 November 2001 07:36:41 GMT

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