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

Re: SOAP Binding & Core: Interaction between Faults and [message id] and [reply endpoint] etc.

From: Prasad Yendluri <pyendluri@webmethods.com>
Date: Mon, 02 May 2005 10:44:55 -0700
Message-ID: <42766717.7060506@webmethods.com>
To: Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
CC: public-ws-addressing-comments@w3.org, mark.nottingham@bea.com

The resolution does not match the issue. It seems the resolution for LC1 
and LC4 got interchanged in sending out these email.
This is the resolution for LC4 and not LC1.

Regards, Prasad

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: 	Re: SOAP Binding & Core: Interaction between Faults and 
[message id] and [reply endpoint] etc.
Date: 	Tue, 19 Apr 2005 11:29:49 -0700
From: 	Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
To: 	Prasad Yendluri <pyendluri@webmethods.com>
CC: 	<public-ws-addressing-comments@w3.org>

Thank you for your comment [1].  The WG decided to drop the Editorial
Note in the next publication.

Please let us know if this resolution is acceptable.  Absent a response
within two weeks, we will presume the resolution is acceptable to you.

[1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/addr/lc-issues/#lc1

> Ref:  [1] WS-Addressing 1.0 Core 
> (http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-ws-addr-core-20050331/)
>         [2] WS-Addressing 1.0 SOAP Binding 
> (http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-ws-addr-soap-20050331)
> The Core specification require [message id] property in a message only

> if expects a reply, as indicated by presence of [reply endpoint] or 
> [fault endpoint] properties. Accordingly  [reply endpoint] is required

> only if a reply is expected. Same goes for [fault endpoint] which is 
> also optional.
> Also messages that are replies do not need to have a [message id] 
> property.
> Given the above, how the faults described in section 5 of the WS-A
> SOAP Binding specification [2] could be received by the sender of 
> the message if these properties are not supplied? I understand that
> the spec says faults are "generated" (and not necessarily 
> transmitted) but, for faults like "5.5  Endpoint Unavailable" that
> also supply a <wsa:RetryAfter>, the intent is to send it so that 
> the receiver can retry the message. These are faults outside of 
> what the service defines in its WSDL.
> So, it seems we are saying that WS-A SOAP binding users SHOULD be 
> prepared to receive such faults even when the underlying service 
> (WSDL) does not define any but we make it difficult for that to happen
> by not requiring the needed properties.
> IMO to enable this, the core spec should highly encourage the use of 
> (SHOULD) [message id] and [fault endpoint] / [reply endpoint] 
> properties?, so that the WS-A defined faults have a chance of reaching

> the sender of the message (including when it is a reply)? Ideally I 
> would make them required properties always.
> Prasad Yendluri
Received on Monday, 2 May 2005 17:47:42 UTC

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