- From: Martin Gudgin <mgudgin@microsoft.com>
- Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 10:57:04 -0700
- To: "Jean-Jacques Moreau" <moreau@crf.canon.fr>
- 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>
Jean-Jacques, I think these additions add significantly to the utility of the table. Thanks for producing it. Gudge > -----Original Message----- > From: Jean-Jacques Moreau [mailto:moreau@crf.canon.fr] > Sent: 18 October 2002 00:42 > To: Martin Gudgin > Cc: Jacek Kopecky; Henrik Frystyk Nielsen; Noah Mendelsohn; > XMLP Dist App > Subject: Re: Proposal for new last call issue: Some > unprocessed headers should stay > > > 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 13:57:37 UTC