[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Proposal to resolve PR25 - Duplicate message response
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
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]