Re: Question on action item

Jack, I don't see why this *should* be allowed, given the ruleset. 
There's a different ruleset for no-fault.

Amy!
On Mon, 08 Dec 2003 15:14:54 +0100
Jacek Kopecky <jacek.kopecky@systinet.com> wrote:

> Amy, I don't think the text as quoted below permits a node to have a
> security policy of never sending faults. There is a path available to
> the node (target of the fault), but still the fault won't be
> delivered. I thought the action meant to clarify that this is allowed.
> 
> Jacek
> 
> On Fri, 2003-12-05 at 18:30, Amelia A Lewis wrote:
> > On reviewing my (or part2 editors') action item from October 23:
> > 
> > Part2_Editors to clarify wording in fault-replaces-message rule that
> > a fault is GENERATED but not necessarily SENT.
> > 
> > I find the current text to be:
> > 
> > Any message, including the first, MAY trigger a fault message in
> > response.  Each recipient MAY generate a fault message, and MUST
> > generate no more than one fault for each triggering message.  Each
> > fault message has direction the reverse of its triggering message. 
> > The fault message MUST be delivered to the originator of the message
> > which triggered it.  If there is no path to this node, the fault
> > MUST be discarded.
> > 
> > Sentence two seems to specify "generated".  Sentences four and five
> > together seem to clarify that, though generated, the fault may not
> > necessarily be sent.
> > 
> > I find the action item in minutes for October 23, a teleconference I
> > apparently missed due to CO poisoning.  The minutes do not include
> > alternative wording, and grepping my mailbox doesn't seem to turn
> > any up.  If the above is not sufficiently clear, could someone help
> > me out with why it isn't, and what would be clearer?  Thanks.
> > 
> > Amy!
> 


-- 
Amelia A. Lewis
Architect, TIBCO/Extensibility, Inc.
alewis@tibco.com

Received on Monday, 8 December 2003 10:14:05 UTC