Issue 592:  1.0 backward compat (2) (interop)
Source:  (, )
Nature:  Uncategorized
Severity: 
Summary: Summary: Assuming a 1.1 server we must Reply using 1.o to Request sent from 1.o client. If we get request with junk revision (eg 2.2) we wil automatically send (1.1) MessageError, but connection is close

Resolution:  closed, accomodated by clarification of version semantics
Revised Text: 
Actions taken:
June 17, 1997: received issue
April 9, 1998: closed issue
Discussion: 

End of Annotations:=====

Date: Wed, 10 Dec 1997 16:49:32 -0500
From: ter@holta.ho.lucent.com (T E Rutt)
To: interop@omg.org
Subject: Interop 1.2 RTF Conference call (Proposed revisions and
issues)

To: Interop 1.2	RTF
Subject: Dec 19, Conference Call
From: Tom Rutt,	RTF Chair

I have attached	my proposed Resolutions	of Issues for ORB
Interoperability 1.2 Revision Task Force.  There was no
meeting	of the RTF at the NJ meeting, since everyone is	so
busy I decided to take a whack at coming up with resolutions
for the	issues.

We need	further	discussion on some of these issues, as
indicated in the actions section of each issue.

A conference Call is scheduled for Friday, December 19,	at
11:00 EST.  I have the bridge reserved for 2 hours.

The bridge phone number	(16 ports reserved) is:
+1 630 224 444	Conference Code	674 369
Let me know if you will	participate, so	I can ensure 16	is
enough ports.

Tom Rutt


Issue 592: 1.0 backward	compat (2) (interop)

Source:	IONA (Mr. Craig	Ryan, cryan@iona.com)
Nature:	Uncategorized
Severity:
Summary: Assuming a 1.1	server we must Reply using 1.o to
Request	sent from 1.o
client.	If we get request with junk revision (eg 2.2) we wil
automatically send (1.1)
MessageError, but connection is	close

Resolution: The	connection closure is probably acceptable,
but should not be required.  The server	should be able to
respond	with either a 1.1 reject or a 1.0 reject response to
a request with version greater than that supported.
Responding with	highest	version	minor number supported seems
to give	the most information to	the client.
Revised	Text:
Actions	taken: Proposed	No revision required.
June 17, 1997: received	issue