OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

ws-rx message

[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

The text below is certainly less garbled, but it fails to mention the WSRMRequired fault. Also I wonder if the use of the phrase "carrying RM header blocks" is correct? If the RMS sends the RMD a CloseSequence message with an Identifier that does not reference a valid sequence I would expect the RMD to return an UnknownSequence fault.
- gp

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.



"Marc Goodner" <mgoodner@microsoft.com>

03/07/2006 12:11 PM

"Gilbert Pilz" <Gilbert.Pilz@bea.com>, <ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org>
[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/
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.

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]