Re: [wsrf] BaseFaults comments from HP

[Ian Robinson <ian_robinson@uk.ibm.com>]

Regards,
Ian Robinson
STSM, WebSphere Messaging and Transactions Architect
IBM Hursley Lab, UK
ian_robinson@uk.ibm.com

"Murray, Bryan P." <bryan.murray@hp.com> wrote on 01/09/2005 01:46:47:

> I have done a critical review of WS-BaseFaults. I am listing several
> issues below but most of them are editorial. All comments are from the
> Public Review version.
>
> Bryan
>
>
>
> Discuss in TC?
> --------------
>
> 1. line 240: why does it matter what the name of the message part is? I
> suggest removing this requirement.
>
Yes. We don't even follow this constraint in our own fault definitions
(e.g. ResourceUnknownFault definition).

> 2. The BaseFault type is defined, but there is no where except in
> examples where there are instructions about how to place an element of
> this or a derived fault pe into a SOAP fault message. The reader never
> knows that this element is placed as a child of the SOAP fault
> detail/Detail element except by examining the examples.
We have no normative references to SOAP or any other specific binding. "The
consideration of protocol-specific bindings." is declared out of scope in
the charter so I think the non-normative examples are as specific as we
should go. I believe the non-normative examples are quite clear.