Re: Edtodo is now uptodate

On Thursday, August 22, 2002, at 10:40 AM, Martin Gudgin wrote:
>>
>>> 221: I think the resolution is problematic.
>>>
>> Agree.
>
> OK, how should we proceed. This issue is closed as far as the WG is
> concerned.
>
The only thing we can do is re-open the issue and state why. I did 
this for one of the other post LC issues and the resolution was 
changed - I can;t remember the issue number off hand.

>>
>>> 289: What does an intermediary do when it receives a fault? Is the
>>> fault guaranteed to be passed on to the original sender (
>> or previous
>>> intermediary)?
>>>
>>
>> Since we don't indicate what happens when faults are
>> generated in the first place, I think the most we can say is
>> that intermediaries MAY forward fault messages.
>>
>> However, I am wondering whether this is not raising a deeper
>> issue, which is how intermediaries forward response messages.
>> I think sections 2.7.* are written from the POV of request
>> messages; do they cover adequately response messages?
>
> Good question. What do the other editors think?
>
I think this is a deeper issue. Does the behaviour differ depending 
on whether the fault is due to something the intermediary did or a 
prior node in the message path ? Is there a difference between a 
request and response message as far as intermediaries are 
concerned ? How would an intermediary determine the difference ?

Marc.

--
Marc Hadley <marc.hadley@sun.com>
XML Technology Center, Sun Microsystems.

Received on Thursday, 22 August 2002 10:58:36 UTC