The ContinuingFaultType is the specific WS-Agreement fault that we defined. I don't know anymore the rationale why it was called that name, but we might want to have a sepate fault type.

Karl, do you rember the semantics of this name?

Heiko

-----
Heiko Ludwig, Dr. rer. pol.
IBM TJ Watson Research Center, PO Box 704, Yorktown, NY, 10598
hludwig@us.ibm.com, tel. +1 914 784 7160, mob. +1 646 675 8469
http://www.research.ibm.com/people/h/hludwig/

Jim Pruyne <jim_pruyne@hp.com>
Sent by: owner-graap-wg@ggf.org

04/24/2006 11:31 AM

To	GRAAP-WG <graap-wg@gridforum.org>
cc
Subject	[graap-wg] minutes from 4/24 telecon

Minutes are attached. The next telecon will be held on May 3, at the usual Wed. time. At this time, we intend to survey the state of the document, and determine any steps needed to submit back to GGF. --- Jim Minutes from the April 24, 2006 GRAAP Telecon Attendees --------- Toshi Nakata Jim Pruyne Chris Dabrowski Asit Dan Discussion ---------- - Spreadsheet row 41: We'd like Heiko to respond about whether there's still a need for the ContinuingFaultType, if not, we'd like to delete. - Jim to run the schema as defined in the document through the Axis tool chain to verify the correctness. - Jim to make sure that all of the comments in the comment tracker have appropriate responses. - Spreadsheet row 37: We agreed that even if accept fails, the agreement is still accepted, and the initiator must query to find out the status. It would be up to the responder to use other mechanisms like signing or reliable delivery if they do not want to risk accepting an agreement that comes from an invalid source.