W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > October 2002

Re: Proposal for new last call issue: Some unprocessed headers should stay

From: Jean-Jacques Moreau <moreau@crf.canon.fr>
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 09:42:19 +0200
Message-ID: <3DAFBB5B.7020509@crf.canon.fr>
To: Martin Gudgin <mgudgin@microsoft.com>
CC: Jacek Kopecky <jacek@systinet.com>, Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <henrikn@microsoft.com>, Noah Mendelsohn <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>, XMLP Dist App <xml-dist-app@w3.org>

Gudge,

Good table. I think it is worth adding whether the role was 
assumed or not. This is especially useful for user-defined roles 
(such as "cacheManager").

I've updated the table accordingly.

|------------------------|----------------------------|
|            Role        |         Header             |
|              |         | Understood |               |
| Name         | Assumed |& Processed | Forwarded     |
|--------------|---------|------------|---------------|
|              |         | Yes        | No, unless    |
|              |         |            | reinserted    |
| relay        | Yes     |------------|---------------|
|              |         | No         | Yes           |
|--------------|---------|------------|---------------|
|              |         | Yes        | No, unless    |
|              |         |            | reinserted    |
| next         | Yes     |------------|---------------|
|              |         | No         | No            |
|--------------|---------|------------|---------------|
|              |         | Yes        | No, unless    |
|              |         |            | reinserted    |
|              | Yes     |------------|---------------|
|              |         | No         | No            |
| user-defined |---------|------------|---------------|
|              | No      | n/a        | Yes           |
|--------------|---------|------------|---------------|
|              |         | Yes        | n/a           |
| ultimateRec. | Yes     |------------|---------------|
|              |         | No         | n/a           |
|--------------|---------|------------|---------------|
| none         | No      | n/a        | Yes           |
|--------------|---------|------------|---------------|

Jean-Jacques.


Martin Gudgin wrote:
 > |------------------|---------------------------|
 > | Role             | Header will be forwarded? |
 > |------------------|---------------------------|
 > | relay            | Y |       Maybe           |
 > |                  |---|-----------------------|
 > |                  | N |       Yes             |
 > |------------------|---|-----------------------|
 > | next             | Y |       Maybe           |
 > |                  |---|-----------------------|
 > |                  | N |       No              |
 > |------------------|---|-----------------------|
 > | ultimateReceiver | Y |       Not applicable  |
 > |                  |---|-----------------------|
 > |                  | N |       Not applicable  |
 > |------------------|---|-----------------------|
 > | none             | Y |       Yes             |
 > |                  |---|-----------------------|
 > |                  | N |       Yes             |
 > |------------------|---|-----------------------|
 >
 >
 > The Y/N column indicates whether the SOAP node understands the 
header
 > block ( note this is independent of the value of 
soap:mustUnderstand ).
 >
 >
 > A 'Yes' indicates that the header will always be forwarded.
 > A 'No' indicates that the header will never be forwarded.
 > A 'Not applicable' means the forwarding never occurs.
 > A 'Maybe' indicates that whether the header block is forwarded 
or not
 > depends on the spec for the header. I realise that this is not 
*really*
 > a 'forward' but rather a 're-insert'
 >
 > Does this help at all?
 >
 > Gudge
Received on Friday, 18 October 2002 03:42:02 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:11 GMT