RE: [ws-tx] Issue 066 - Inconsistency on WS-BA use of "Fault"s

[Ram Jeyaraman <Ram.Jeyaraman@microsoft.com>]

[For the records] [Thanks Tom F.]

This is the resolution the TC agreed to during the Aug 29th F2F meeting. The issues list will link to this resolution.

________________________________
From: Thomas Freund
Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2006 7:04 AM
To: Ram Jeyaraman
Subject: Re: [ws-tx] Issue 066 - Inconsistency on WS-BA use of "Fault"s


Summary of changes agreed to at Redmond WS-Tx F2F, August 29 20006

1. Text inconsistency between WS-AT & WS-BA

Lines 488-490 have been removed from the WS-AT specification subsequent to the submission of this issue. The inconsistency no longer exists. No change to WS-BA.

2. Agreed to remove the phrase "in this specification and" from line 408 in the WS-BA specification

3. Agreed to change the message names

    *   Fault -> Fail
    *   Faulted -> Failed
(global change to document text, state diagrams, state tables and xsd & wsdl files)


Regards
Tom

[cid:1__=09BBFB49DFDF1F728f9e8a93df938@us.ibm.com]"Ram Jeyaraman" <Ram.Jeyaraman@microsoft.com>



"Ram Jeyaraman" <Ram.Jeyaraman@microsoft.com>

06/15/2006 05:18 PM



To

<ws-tx@lists.oasis-open.org>

cc



Subject

[ws-tx] Issue 066 - Inconsistency on WS-BA use of "Fault"s



This is identified as WS-TX issue 066.

Please ensure follow-ups have a subject line starting "Issue 066 -
Inconsistency on WS-BA use of "Fault"s".

-----Original Message-----
From: Tom Rutt [mailto:tom@coastin.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 12:16 PM
To: ws-tx
Subject: [ws-tx] NEW ISSUE - Inconsistency on WS-BA use of "Fault"s

WS-AT (cd02) has the following statement on lines - 488-590
"
Fault messages
* MUST include a wsa:RelatesTo header, specifying the MessageID from the

Notification
message that generated the fault condition.
"

However WS-BA does not include this text.

Also, WS-BA includes the following text (lines 406-410):
"
* A notification message is a terminal message when it indicates the end

of a coordinator/participant
relationship. Closed, Compensated, Canceled, Exited and Faulted are
terminal messages as are
the protocol faults defined in this specification and in [WSCOOR].
* A notification message is a non-terminal message when it does not
indicate the end of a 409
coordinator/participant relationship. Complete, Completed, Close,
Compensate, Cancel, Exit and
Fault are non-terminal messages.
"

There are no new protocol faults define in WS BA, so the meaning of the
text "as are the protocol faults defined in this specification", is
confusing.

The protocol faults are all mapped onto the soap fault syntax in
ws-coord and ws-at, and there are no "protocol faults" defined
in ws-ba.

However, there is a wsdl one-way operation defined in WS-BA called
"Fault". This is not treated as a "protocol fault" defined
in this specification, and is not mapped onto the soap fault syntax.
This is confusing, and needs to be explained suffiently for
comprehension by a new reader.

Proposed Resolutions:

a) Either:
Add the missing text which is in WS-AT into WS-BA:
"
Fault messages
* MUST include a wsa:RelatesTo header, specifying the MessageID from the

Notification
message that generated the fault condition.
"
or add a clarification to justify why this requirement is not included
in WS-BA.

b) Either: change the name of the "Fault" wsdl operation in WS-BA

or Add clarificaiton text on why the "Fault" operation in WS-BA is
different than a "protocol fault" notification.

----------------------------------------------------


--
----------------------------------------------------
Tom Rutt email: tom@coastin.com; trutt@us.fujitsu.com
Tel: +1 732 801 5744          Fax: +1 732 774 5133