W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-addressing-tests@w3.org > March 2006

[public-ws-addressing-tests] <none>

From: Glen Daniels <gdaniels@sonicsoftware.com>
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2006 14:24:29 -0500
Message-ID: <80A43FC052CE3949A327527DCD5D6B27019863AF@MAIL01.bedford.progress.com>
To: "Mike Vernal" <Mike.Vernal@microsoft.com>
Cc: <public-ws-addressing-tests@w3.org>

Hey folks:

Some interesting results from the latest MS test run against Axis
(thanks, folks):

1143 and 1243 are failing because MS is sending a non-URI value for the
duplicate Action header, and Axis is catching that as a problem before
it notices the invalid addressing header fault.  Since this is
essentially a schema validation error, I think we're OK in our behavior
(what do others think?) - that box will turn green if MS can change the
"duplicate-action" value to something like "http://duplicate-action".

It looks like 1142/1242 are failing because we're trying to send the
fault to http://duplicate/ (the value of the second FaultTo).  What's
the right behavior here?  Should we always default to anonymous for
duplicate FaultTo/ReplyTo errors?  It certainly doesn't say that in the
spec anywhere.... is this something we need to clear up in the spec?

I have no idea what's up with 1150/1250/1251 - Mike, if you (or
whoever's appropriate) get some time I'd love to debug this in realtime
at some point...

1170 is failing because we are (correctly) catching the fact that "true"
isn't a valid MU attribute value for SOAP 1.1.  The <wsa:From> header
should be using "1" if MS wants to mark it MU.

So if MS fixes the three client issues, that'll clear 1143/1243/1170,
I'm looking for guidance on 1142/1242, and hopefully we can fix
1150/1250/1251.

Thanks,
--Glen
Received on Wednesday, 8 March 2006 19:26:02 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 19:54:42 UTC