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: i115 side-note; possible editorial issue

Lines 545-547 of the very lovely http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ws-rx/download.php/17836/wsrm-1.1-spec-wd-12.pdf state:
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.
Lines 575-577 have the exact same text.
Firstly, I'm not sure if the mention of the mustUnderstand fault is relevant. If a message carrying a piggy-backed RM Header contained another header with the soap:mU attribute and that header wasn't supported by that SOAP node (I'm assuming that it isn't the RM Header that is marked mU), it doesn't seem that anything anyone did or didn't do at the RM layer would make the tiniest bit of difference. The SOAP processor is going to generate a fault and the RM layer will never see the message. It seems like we are directing RM implementers to worry about a case that isn't their problem.
Secondly, if the part about "a non-mustUnderstand fault" is relevant, the text only says what should happen in one of the cases. If the RM layer were involved in the handling a mustUnderstand fault on a message containing a piggy-backed RM Header what is it supposed to do? One guess would be to process the fault "normally" (stop processing and return a fault). Another, equally valid, guess would be to drop the fault on the floor and continue processing the message.
- gp

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