Re: [wsrf] [BaseFaults] mandating or suggesting values for top-level SOAPfault elements

[Steve Graham <sggraham@us.ibm.com>]

is the definition of the base fault
in the WSDL not sufficient?

++++++++
Steve Graham
(919)254-0615 (T/L 444)
STSM, On Demand Architecture
Member, IBM Academy of Technology
<Soli Deo Gloria/>
++++++++

"Springer, Ian P." <ian.springer@hp.com>

10/19/2004 12:59 PM

To	<wsrf@lists.oasis-open.org>
cc
Subject	[wsrf] [BaseFaults] mandating or suggesting values for top-level SOAP fault elements

The WS-Addressing spec has a section that defines
several faults
(http://www.w3.org/Submission/2004/SUBM-ws-addressing-20040810/#_Toc7746
4328). For each fault, the spec not only defines the detail element (ie
- the fault message element defined in the WSDL), but also defines what
the values of the top-level SOAP fault elements, Code, Subcode, and
Reason, should be. I propose doing something similar in the BaseFaults
spec. Even if we don't mandate the values of the Code, Subcode, and
Reason (ie - the values MUST be ...), it would be nice to suggest what
values to use (ie - the values SHOULD be ...).

Ian