If your mechanism was part of the core spec, we would not need the outbound <faultNodeIDRequest> header, would we? We would simply have the inbound <faultNodeID>, right? As Stuart, I'd hate to use headers for such a simple mechanism; but I understand your concern... Jean-Jacques. Jacek Kopecky wrote: > [...] The extension could be something like the following: > > Non-fault messages contain a header > <ns:faultNodeIDRequest xmlns:ns="..." > env:role=".../next" env:mustUnderstand="true"? /> > The contract of this header would be such that the receiving > node, upon faulting (other than mustUnderstand, I think, but I'm > not sure about this point because of the ordering of > "understanding" a header and fulfilling its contract), would put > in the fault message a header > <ns:faultNodeID xmlns:ns="...">uri</ns:faultNodeID>Received on Thursday, 31 January 2002 07:35:35 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 October 2009 08:41:50 GMT