Re: [ebxml-bp] Re: ebBP 2/22/2005: Any Protocol Failure Question:section 4.6.8.1 and 4.8.3

["Monica J. Martin" <Monica.Martin@Sun.COM>]

>Moberg: I am not certain how the group has explained the use of these status
>values, because a given event can be evidence for several status values.
>I have assumed that RAE and AAE are technical failures. It seems
>reasonable that GeneralException would be a technical failure also. When
>an event occurs that makes multiple flavors of failure occur, and there
>are distinct transitions defined that vary for those different status
>values, I think the specification leaves it open exactly what a
>monitoring application would require to verify that behavior was as the
>BPSS instance specified. It is a case where the implementation is
>expected to do something reasonable (after all, a failure has occurred
>so in general it will be necessary to note the failures that have been
>detected...)  If a NOF business message failed to be sent after an
>exception, it would just be another protocol failure (choreography
>violation) for that session. I think it would still be worth reporting
>in a monitoring tool.
>  
>
mm2:  Given that response, do we make any schema changes to the proposed 
text I provided in last email? And, which is Failure:

    * Business or Technical Failure
    * Business and Technical Failure

See wd 10 2/23/2005 Section 4.8.3.

Thanks.

>mm1: Thanks John, I'll take these comments for revisions in the General 
>Exception text proposed. I have a question for Dale and Hima though. 
>Hima, any concerns?
>Dale, do we need to make any changes to the schema in line with 
>associating AnyProtocolFailure with GeneralExceptionType? Updated text 
>is provided at the end of this email.  I have one final question, isn't 
>Failure actually an AnyProtocolFailure and Business Failure combined?  
>This would be consistent with Success which is a Technical and Business 
>Success? Trying to ensure correction of any typos or copy-paste errors 
>(Section 4.8.3). Thanks.
>  
>