Re: [wsrm] sending rm replies with soap faults

[Tom Rutt <tom@coastin.com>]

Tom Rutt wrote:

> The behaviour of sending an rm reply with a soap fault when the 
> message cannot be delivered
> has been in the document for a while.

.. history removed

>  
>
> Based on the discussion, I will move the text back to the way it was 
> in 1.01,
> but I would rather have the text be changed from 1.01 to the following,
>
> "
> In case a Response RM-Reply Pattern is required, and when the message
> cannot be delivered to the Consumer, then a SOAP Fault MUST be 
> generated in addition to the RM-Reply for that message. Because either 
> a well-formed response or a SOAP Fault is
> expected on the sending side, then the response leg of the transaction 
> MUST contain
> a SOAP Fault in the SOAP Body when no business response is available. 
> More
> details are given in the HTTP Binding section.


In retrospect, I see Doug Bunting's Point about not making this 
condition too broad. 
Since this is in a RM fault section,
It should be qualified as the behaviour when there is a RM fault 
situation, and should not include the duplicate elimination case.

As long as the wording does not restrict it to the MessageFormat errors 
only, I will be happy with it.

I look forward to reading what Doug proposes for the wording of this bullet.

> 9
>
> Tom Rutt
>

-- 
----------------------------------------------------
Tom Rutt	email: tom@coastin.com; trutt@us.fujitsu.com
Tel: +1 732 801 5744          Fax: +1 732 774 5133