Re: [ws-caf] Revised MustUnderstand Proposal

[Greg Pavlik <greg.pavlik@oracle.com>]

Peter,

Does this satisfy your concern? Does anyone else have comments on this? 
I'd like to close out some of these basic issues so we can lock down 
context/coordination and move on to the transaction space in the next 
few weeks.

Greg

Kevin Conner wrote:

> Furniss, Peter wrote:
>
>> SOAP 1.2 says "A SOAP header block is said to be understood by a SOAP
>> node if the software at that SOAP node has been written to fully conform
>> to and implement the semantics specified for the XML expanded name of
>> the outer-most element information item of that header block". 
>
>
> My understanding of this statement is that a SOAP node must have some 
> mechanism of processing the header identified by the outer element and 
> whether this processing is successful or not is another issue.  
> Identification and handling of extensions is, to my mind, part of the 
> processing stage.
>
> If the header arrives without the mustUnderstand attribute, and the 
> SOAP node decides that it should handle it in any case, then I would 
> hope that errors in processing would be handled in the same way.
>
>> Does an soap header-specifying spec (like ws-caf) have then to define
>> its own "header not fully understood" fault, or can it interpret "fully
>> conform to and implement" as including the effects of values which are
>> not recognised, but known (by their placement or type) to be critical to
>> the full implementation of the senders intent.  It would seem mildly
>> perverse of SOAP to say we must define our own fault merely because they
>> have been selfish with theirs :-)
>
>
> I would certainly like to see a context specific fault representing an 
> unknown addressing specification. :-)
>
>    Kev
>