W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-addressing@w3.org > December 2004

RE: new wsa:FaultTo text

From: Yalcinalp, Umit <umit.yalcinalp@sap.com>
Date: Sat, 18 Dec 2004 01:46:52 +0100
Message-ID: <99CA63DD941EDC4EBA897048D9B0061D0F676D7D@uspalx20a.pal.sap.corp>
To: "Doug Davis" <dug@us.ibm.com>, <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>
It seems to me the meaning should be governed by the  MEP of the
specific endpoint where the fault rule  defined for the specific MEP
applies. See WSDL 2.0 Part 2, section 2.1 [1]. 
 
--umit
 
[1]
http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/desc/wsdl20/wsdl20-extension
s.html?content-type=text/html;%20charset=utf-8

-----Original Message-----
From: public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org
[mailto:public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org] 
Sent: Thursday, Dec 16, 2004 15:51 PM
To: public-ws-addressing@w3.org
Subject: new wsa:FaultTo text



Actually, another possibility is that no wsa:FaultTo means "treat the
fault as the response and send it where ever the response would go".  Is
either of these the correct intent?   
thanks, 
-Dug 


__________________ 

All, 
  just noticed this: 


i029 
Disallowing Faults -
<http://www.w3.org/Search/Mail/Public/advanced_search?hdr-1-name=subject
&hdr-1-query=i029&resultsperpage=50&sortby=date&index-type=l&index=publi
c-ws-addressing> search 	
core - design - closed
	Description 
wsa:FaultTo "may be absent if the sender cannot receive fault messages
(e.g. is a one-way application message)." But it also says that in the
absence of wsa:FaultTo the wsa:ReplyTo/From may be used. So, how does a
sender really say that it doesn't want ANY fault messages at all but
still be allowed to specify a wsa:From? 
Origin 
 <mailto:dug@us.ibm.com> Doug Davis 
Owner 
 <mailto:hreynolds@webmethods.com> Harris Reynolds 
Resolution2004-12-07 
Add "when present" to the second sentence of [fault endpoint] of Core
section three; remove third to fifth sentences of [fault endpoint of
Core section three (so as to not imply a processing model); make similar
changes in [reply endpoint] definition. 


And the new text for wsa:FaultTo says: 

[fault endpoint] : endpoint reference (0..1) 
An endpoint reference that identifies the intended receiver for faults
related to this message. When formulating a fault message as defined in
<http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2004/ws/addressing/ws-addr-core.htm
l#formreplymsg> 3.2 Formulating a Reply Message, the sender MUST use the
contents of the [fault endpoint], when present, of the message being
replied to to formulate the fault message. If this property is present,
the [message id] property is REQUIRED. 

So, what does it mean when the wsa:FaultTo header is not present?  Does
it mean the client will not get back any faults at all or does the fault
get sent back to the wsa:ReplyTo EPR?  Probably not since the defaulting
back to wsa:ReplyTo is not mentioned any more.  So, what should the
client expect in terms of where Faults will go when wsa:FaultTo is not
present?  As the text stands now I would guess that  no wsa:FaultTo is
the same as wsa:FaultTo == anonymousURI  - meaning send faults back on
the HTTP response flow - is this the new intent? 

thanks, 
-Dug 
Received on Saturday, 18 December 2004 00:47:34 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:35:00 GMT