[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [ws-rx] Issue 133: Duplicate text in fault section
That is definitely better. But there may
be a need for an additional fix: - The current text seems to suggest that all
other faults in the section (other than CreateSeqFault, UnknownSeq, WSRMReq) relate
to RM header block processing. In some cases though, such faults could “spontaneously”
be generated e.g. by the RM Source, e.g. SequenceTerminated. - More importantly, the destination of “Sequence
faults” is recommended to be the same as wsrm:SequenceAcknowledgement . But when these faults are generated by the RMS, is that
appropriate? (shouldn’t be the destination either (a) the RMD, by
default, or (b) a destination defined by policy ?) That seems to be the case for: InvalidAcknowledgement,
UnknownSequence in some cases, etc. Propose the following updates: 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.
WSRMRequired is a fault generated by
endpoints that require the use of WS-RM and
receive a message that did not use the protocol. All
other faults in this section relate to [remove:
the processing of RM header blocks targeted at] known
Sequences and are collectively referred to as Sequence faults.
Entities that generate Sequence faults and
that are a destination for the sequence (RMD role) SHOULD
send those faults to the same [destination] as <wsrm:SequenceAcknowledgement>
messages. These faults are correlated using the Sequence
identifier carried in the detail. The
following could be added as well: Entities that generate Sequence faults and that are a source for the sequence (RMS
role) SHOULD send those faults to the RMD for this sequence, unless
another destination has been agreed on in a policy. -Jacques From: Marc Goodner
[mailto:mgoodner@microsoft.com] Here is my proposed
text. The first paragraph gets struck, the new sentence is in bold. I’ll send by EOD unless I get a
fault. Replace: The faults defined in this section
fall into one of two categories; those faults that are the result of messages or operations within a
specific Sequence and those faults that are not. By their nature the CreateSequenceRefused,
UnknownSequence, and WSRMRequired faults cannot be correlated with a Sequence. All other faults defined
in this section relate to the processing of WS-RM protocol messages or messages containing WS-RM header
blocks targeted at a specific Sequence and are collectively referred to as "Sequence faults". 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.
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. Entities that generate Sequence faults SHOULD
send those faults to the same [destination] as <wsrm:SequenceAcknowledgement>
messages. These faults are correlated using the Sequence identifier carried in the detail. With: 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.
WSRMRequired is a fault generated by
endpoints that require the use of WS-RM and
receive a message that did not use the protocol. 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.
Entities that generate Sequence faults SHOULD send those faults to the same [destination] as <wsrm:SequenceAcknowledgement>
messages. These faults are correlated using the Sequence
identifier carried in the detail. Marc Goodner Technical Diplomat Microsoft Corporation Tel: (425) 703-1903 From: Marc
Goodner [mailto:mgoodner@microsoft.com] Title:
Duplicate text in fault section Description: In Section 4 of WS-RM the first two
paragraphs of this section are practically duplicates of each other. Target:
core Type:
editorial Proposal:
The first paragraph can be stricken by adding a one
sentence description of WSRMRequired after the second sentence of the second
paragraph in Section 4. |
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]