W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-addressing-comments@w3.org > June 2005

Re: Lc71 mandatory fault reason

From: Jacek Kopecky <jacek.kopecky@deri.org>
Date: Thu, 02 Jun 2005 11:14:39 +0200
To: Katy Warr <katy_warr@uk.ibm.com>
Cc: Mark Nottingham <mark.nottingham@bea.com>, public-ws-addressing-comments@w3.org
Message-Id: <1117703679.2706.8.camel@Kalb>


I'd like to register my disagreement with this resolution.

I recognize that the reason element is mandatory in faults, but this
does not mean that WS-Addressing needs to mandate what exactly it will
be as it is only a human-oriented informative string.

For analogy, please note that HTTP also mandates a reason string in
replies but the spec does not mandate what that string is going to be.
For 200 the usual is "OK", but an implementation may choose "success"
instead, or use a different language.

Therefore I propose that WS-Addressing only suggests what the reason
element could contain, perhaps noting that the presence of the reason
element is in fact mandatory in both SOAPs. This way, the content of the
reason element would not be a WS-Addressing conformance consideration.

Best regards,


On Wed, 2005-06-01 at 08:53 +0100, Katy Warr wrote:
> Jacek 
> The WS-A WG decided on 23/05/05 that your issue Lc71 will be closed
> with no change to the optionality of the reason element because this
> element is mandatory in both SOAP 1.1 and 1.2.  However, some
> editorial cleanup will be done as a result of this discussion. 
> regards 
> Katy Warr 
> (on behalf of WS-Addressing Working Group) 
Received on Thursday, 2 June 2005 15:58:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 19:49:00 UTC