NEW ISSUE: misplaced guidance on fault handling

[Christopher B Ferris <chrisfer@us.ibm.com>]

Title: Misplaced guidance on fault handling

Description:

Line 566 CD3 WS-RM spec (SeqAck section
3.6) reads:

If a non-mustUnderstand fault occurs
when processing an RM Header that was piggy-backed on 
another message, a fault MUST be generated,
but the processing of the original
message MUST NOT be affected.

First point, this text isn't very clear.
Second, it is IMO misplaced. It really should be called out separately
as it applies to more than just SequenceAcks.

Justification:

This guidance is in the SeqAck section
and really deserves to stand on its own as it applies to any
RM header block that is piggy-backed
on a message unrelated to the Sequence.

Target: core

Proposal:

Strike sentence beginning on line 566,
through line 568.

Insert, after line 232:

When processing of an RM protocol element
generates a fault and that RM protocol element
pertains to a Sequence that is otherwise
unrelated to the message in which the protocol element is contained,  
(i.e. the RM protocol element is a SequenceAcknowledgement
or AcksRequested element) the receiving endpoint MUST continue 
normal processing the message unless
the generated fault is a SOAP MustUnderstand fault.

After matter:

Note that this says nothing about transmission
of the generated fault. I personally believe that we
should leave well enough alone, however,
I recognize that this MAY present interoperability
issues, especially in the case where
both the [reply] endpoint and the [fault] endpoint are
anonymous. I COULD see adding guidance
that says that when the above criteria are met
that the endpoint MUST NOT transmit
the fault to the anon endpoint UNLESS there is 
no response message to be transmitted.

Cheers,

Christopher Ferris
STSM, Software Group Standards Strategy
email: chrisfer@us.ibm.com
blog: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/dw_blog.jspa?blog=440
phone: +1 508 377 9295