Re: Use of FaultTo when propagating WS-A Faults

Jonathan Marsh wrote:

> "It seems particularly wrong simply to drop such a message on the
> floor because it happened to lack an [action]."
>
>  
>
> It only seems wrong because you don't believe action should be
> mandatory.  It is right to drop a message on the floor (in the absence
> of any trustworthy fallback way to return the fault) when it's so
> badly malformed according to the spec.
>
Hmm ... I thought I believed that it's important to make every
reasonable effort to get error information to the party that can fix the
error, but what do I know?

To be clear, I /do/ tend to think [action] should be optional, but
that's not the main driver here.

>  
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *From:* public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org
> [mailto:public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org] *On Behalf Of *David Hull
> *Sent:* Friday, July 15, 2005 11:28 AM
> *To:* David Orchard
> *Cc:* public-ws-addressing@w3.org
> *Subject:* Re: Use of FaultTo when propagating WS-A Faults
>
>  
>
> What if we really are in a one-way scenario and "anonymous" is
> undefined?  It seems wrong not to try to send a fault to the [fault
> endpoint] if it exists.  It seems particularly wrong simply to drop
> such a message on the floor because it happened to lack an [action].
>
> David Orchard wrote:
>
> 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
>
>  
>