OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

wsrf message

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

Subject: RE: [wsrf] BaseFaults comments from HP


Regarding your comment on #2: I interpret the charter to be speaking
about transport protocols. I would not consider SOAP to be a transport
protocol. Furthermore, the WS-* specifications are centered around SOAP
even if they do not normatively require it.

Right now the BaseFaults defines a fault type and element. Without a
requirement that it be placed in a SOAP fault, someone could return an
element derived from BaseFaultType as the only child of SOAP Body and be
compliant with the specification. Do we want to allow this behavior?

-----Original Message-----
From: Ian Robinson [mailto:ian_robinson@uk.ibm.com] 
Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2005 1:34 AM
To: Murray, Bryan P.
Cc: wsrf@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [wsrf] BaseFaults comments from HP

Ian Robinson
STSM, WebSphere Messaging and Transactions Architect IBM Hursley Lab, UK

"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

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