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

Re: Syntax options for Async

From: Anish Karmarkar <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2005 12:14:55 -0800
Message-ID: <438B653F.20403@oracle.com>
To: nahudson@sqc.co.uk
CC: "public-ws-addressing@w3.org " <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>


The WS-Addressing WG discussed your email at [1] during last week's 
concall. Although this is not an official WG endorsed response, the WG 
asked me to respond to your email based on the discussions on the call.

 >[1] Question on the Null 202 Response?
 >Does the reply have to have an empty HTTP body or is it just that there
 >no Soap Body inside the reply?  What meaningful information could be
 >contained in a non empty HTTP body?  The BP 1.1 states that for one-way
 >operation there is no Soap Envelope in the response, should these two
 >patterns be consistent?

The authors of the proposal confirmed that the reply had to have an 
empty HTTP entity body (and not empty SOAP body). It was a typo.

 >[2] Exceptional Cases - Sending Faults to the 'Wrong' Place

WS-Addressing does not change the SOAP processing model (when bound to 
SOAP). Processing of a SOAP message may result in fault(s) (such as a 
mustUnderstand fault). There is no requirement in the SOAP processing 
model as to where (and how) the faults are sent, if they are sent at 
all. SOAP distinguishes between "generating" a fault and "sending" a 
fault. The SOAP processing model talks only about generating a fault. 
Whether a generated fault is sent back to the sender of the message or 
not may depend on the underlying transport, underlying binding used, 
security considerations, application specific semantics, policies, MEPs etc.

A similar issue was discussed before [2] and the WG concluded that 
wsa:FaultTo applies only if the receiver can understand WS-A and can 
process the message/headers. The WG decided not to include anything in 
the spec to call this out, as this would be repeating what the SOAP 
specification already says.

Thanks and regards.


Received on Monday, 28 November 2005 20:15:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:04:11 UTC