In my opinion this seems
to cover this issue. What more would need to be done?
From: Doug Davis
[mailto:dug@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 07, 2006 9:22
AM
To: Marc Goodner
Cc: Gilbert Pilz;
ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [ws-rx] Issue i098 -
This is about protocol vs. sequence faults
Section 4, in WD 11, now states:
4 Faults
The
fault definitions defined in this section reference certain abstract
properties, such as [fault endpoint], that are defined in section 3 of the
WS-Addressing [WS-Addressing] specification. Endpoints compliant with this
specification MUST include required Message Addressing Properties on all fault
messages.
Faults
for the CreateSequence message exchange are treated as defined in
WS-Addressing. CreateSequenceRefused is a possible fault reply for this
operation. UnknownSequence is a fault generated by endpoints when messages
carrying RM header blocks targeted at unrecognized or terminated sequences are
detected, these faults are also treated as defined in WS-Addressing. All other
faults in this section relate to the processing of RM header blocks targeted at
known sequences and are collectively referred to as sequence faults. Sequence
faults SHOULD be sent to the same [destination] as
<wsrm:SequenceAcknowledgement> messages. These faults are correlated
using the Sequence identifier carried in the detail.
...
thanks
-Doug
|
"Marc Goodner"
<mgoodner@microsoft.com>
03/07/2006 12:11 PM
|
|
To
|
"Gilbert Pilz"
<Gilbert.Pilz@bea.com>, <ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org>
|
|
cc
|
|
|
Subject
|
[ws-rx] Issue i098 - This is about protocol
vs. sequence faults
|
|
The issue says “sequence” and “non-sequence” faults, I
would characterize it more as protocol vs. sequence faults though.
I
agree that the text referred to is garbled, I think the editor may have already
made a change to that text to try to improve it. If so could one of the editors
provide that to the list so we can discuss this with the most recent language
in the spec?
It
seems to me that if this text is fixed, i.e. that it is referring to protocol
operation faults, that is probably sufficient. Are you suggesting that more
needs to be done? For example do you think that every fault needs to be
annotated in the spec as to whether it is a protocol or sequence fault?
Marc
Goodner
Technical
Diplomat
Microsoft
Corporation
Tel:
(425) 703-1903
Blog:
http://spaces.msn.com/mrgoodner/