[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [ws-rx] Issue i098 - This is about protocol vs. sequence faults
From: Doug Davis [mailto:email@example.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 07, 2006 9:22 AM
To: Marc Goodner
Cc: Gilbert Pilz; firstname.lastname@example.org
Subject: Re: [ws-rx] Issue i098 - This is about protocol vs. sequence faults
Section 4, in WD 11, now states:
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.
"Marc Goodner" <email@example.com>
03/07/2006 12:11 PM
To "Gilbert Pilz" <Gilbert.Pilz@bea.com>, <firstname.lastname@example.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?
Tel: (425) 703-1903
_______________________________________________________________________ Notice: This email message, together with any attachments, may contain information of BEA Systems, Inc., its subsidiaries and affiliated entities, that may be confidential, proprietary, copyrighted and/or legally privileged, and is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity named in this message. If you are not the intended recipient, and have received this message in error, please immediately return this by email and then delete it.