Proposal to resolve PR25 - Duplicate message response

[Tom Rutt <tom@coastin.com>]

Proposal to resolve Issue PR25 – Duplicate message response

The public review draft, CD .992, clearly states the following behaviour 
in section 4.5:
“
A message with an RM Fault indication MUST NOT be delivered by the 
receiving RMP. If the
message cannot be delivered due, say an request fault, then there would 
be no meaningful data
for the responder to put into the SOAP Body for the WSDL response.

When using the Response RM-Reply pattern, a WSDL operation reply will 
not always be
available for the receiving RMP to return with the RM-Response. This 
will occur when there is a
Reliable Messaging Fault for the message in the request, or when the 
message in the request is
a duplicate of a prior delivered message with Duplicate Elimination in use.

When a receiving RMP cannot return the WSDL operation response for a 
request using the
Response Reply Pattern, it MUST return the RM Response in a SOAP Fault 
message. If the RM
Fault encountered was due to a problem with the request header element, 
a SOAP client fault
MUST be returned. If the RM Fault encountered was due to a problem with 
processing by the
receiving RMP (including the inability to return a response due to 
Duplicate Elimination), a
soap:server fault must be returned.
“

However, the wording above needs to be amended, to use the new terms 
introduced
by Jacques in contribution draft 1.04. We agreed to put the duplicate 
elimination response behaviour in the section pertaining to duplicate 
elimination.

Propose Resolution:
Add the following text at the end of section 3.2.2, Duplicate 
Elimination – protocol requirements:

“
When the Response RM-Reply Pattern is requested with duplicate 
elimination for a
reliable message, and a resend of that message cannot be delivered to 
the Consumer by
the Receiving RMP because it is a duplicate of a previously delivered 
message, the
response of the SOAP MEP instance:
- SHOULD contain a copy of the original response payload returned for 
that message ID (in the SOAP Body) in addition to the rm-acknowledgement 
indication (in the SOAP Header).
- MAY contain a SOAP server Fault (in the SOAP Body) in addition to the 
rm-acknowledgment indication (in the SOAP Header).

The Sending RMP and Producer expect either a complete response or a SOAP 
Fault
when using the Response RM-Reply Pattern and these two allowed 
behaviours satisfies
those expectations.
“


Tom Rutt

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