W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-addressing-comments@w3.org > January 2006

Addressing 1.0: Core and SOAP issues

From: Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2006 12:07:20 -0800
To: public-ws-addressing-comments@w3.org
Message-Id: <1137614840.6154.24.camel@localhost>
Core:

 section "3.4 Formulating a Reply Message"

  talks about "a reply or fault message related to another message" and
about "related message".

  The current wording is confusing. In all case, the "related message"
is in fact a request.

  Proposed changes:
   s/related to another message/related to a request message/
   s/related message/request message/
   s/Example 3-1. Example message/Example 3-1. Example request message/
   s/above message/above request message/

SOAP 1.2:
 
 section "3.2 Description"

   "A message MUST NOT contain more than one wsa:To, wsa:ReplyTo,
wsa:FaultTo, wsa:Action, or wsa:MessageID header targeted at a
recipient. A recipient MUST generate a wsa:InvalidAddressingHeader (see
5.4.1 Invalid Addressing Header) fault if such a message is received."

    Why requiring an error wsa:InvalidAddressingHeader when you have two
action headers, but not requiring an error
wsa:MessageAddressingHeaderRequired when no action header is present?

   Also, how about s/targeted at a recipient/targeted at each recipient/
to make it clear that each recipient can't have more than on for those
headers targeted to it.

 section "5. Faults"

  "[Subsubcode] A more specific fault subcode that may be used to
further qualify the value of the [Subcode] property, use of a specified
fault subcode is OPTIONAL."
 
  I believe the intent is to say that implementations are not required
to send a Subsubcode but, if they do, it must match the specified one.
Maybe just changing s/a specified fault subcode/the specified fault
subcode/ is enough.

Philippe


Received on Wednesday, 18 January 2006 20:07:32 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:19:39 GMT