Re: [wsrm] Ack message and Fault message

["iwasa" <kiwasa@jp.fujitsu.com>]

Hi Sunil,

OK. It is the same with the original version of the spec(WS-R 1.0),
if we require MessageHeader element for Ack and Fault
message also.

But I thought we do not require the MessageHeader
for Ack or Fault anymore. The reason I thought that were:

1. Any of MessageHeader element don't have to be
    in Ack or Fault, since we do not have
    any of "from" and "to" for sender and receiver,
    and timestamp in the current spec.

2. ReplyPattern must not be in Ack or Fault,
    but it is Mandatory element in the current spec.

But I don't propose this change if TC consensus
is requiring the MessageHeader for Ack and Fault.

Thanks,

Iwasa

>
>  Iwasa,
>
> iwasa wrote:
>
> > Additional information.
> >
> > Currently section 3.1 states:
> > "The MessageHeader element MUST be present for Reliable Message,
PollRequest
> > message, Acknowledgment message, or Fault message. The MessageHeader
element
> > includes basic information to be used for a reliable message. This
element
> > includes the following attributes and child elements:"
>
>  The above sentence is indeed correct. We ALWAYS need MessageHeader for
>  every RM message be it a Request, Ack. Response or a Fault message.
>
> >
> >
> > So Ack and Fault message MUST include
> > MessageHeader element, according to the current spec.
> > Is that what we want? I think we should remove
>
>  Yes, that's what we want. Why do you felt that this have to be removed?
>
> >
> > "Acknowledgment message" and "Fault message"
> > from this sentence.
> >
>
>  -Sunil
>