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

Use of FaultTo when propagating WS-A Faults

From: David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2005 10:41:35 -0700
Message-ID: <32D5845A745BFB429CBDBADA57CD41AF1135A46C@ussjex01.amer.bea.com>
To: <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>
Related to LC76, we came to the agreement that ReplyTo would NOT be used
when a message contains an imperfect set of WS-A Headers, like a missing
WS-A: Action.

 

What about the use of FaultTo for a Fault?  Imagine the scenario where
FaultTo is non-anonymous and Action is missing.  The receiver decides to
Fault (perhaps because mU was on a WS-A header).  

 

I think the correct behaviour is that the FaultTo should not be used for
propagating the Fault, because the FaultTo is part of the overall WS-A
set of headers which aren't valid.  But that does seem a little
counter-intuitive.

 

If the FaultTo is ignored, then Fault would probably be sent back over
an HTTP Connection if one exists.  This is like changing the faultTo to
become anonymous.  This seems to be yet another scenario where even
though the sender believes it is a one-way message, it will allow for a
soap fault in the response if it wants as much information as possible.

 

Cheers,

Dave
Received on Friday, 15 July 2005 17:41:42 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:35:06 GMT