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

Re: Updated Table: wsaw:Anonymous Combinations

From: Christopher B Ferris <chrisfer@us.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2006 20:30:56 -0400
To: David Hull <dmh@tibco.com>
Cc: Arun Gupta <Arun.Gupta@Sun.COM>, W3C WS-Addressing Public List <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>
Message-ID: <OFDCDF3644.45575B1A-ON852571CB.000298E4-852571CB.0002C43C@us.ibm.com>
Who is Tony and why does he have a timeline? I'm missing the connection.

Christopher Ferris
STSM, Software Group Standards Strategy
email: chrisfer@us.ibm.com
blog: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/dw_blog.jspa?blog=440
phone: +1 508 377 9295

David Hull <dmh@tibco.com> wrote on 08/14/2006 04:13:15 PM:

> Christopher B Ferris wrote: 
> There is an important, yet subtle distinction not captured in the 
> table (either version). 
> The SOAP MU fault will ALWAYS travel on the HTTP response REGARDLESS 
> of what the wsa:faultTo, wsa:ReplyTo, etc. say. Thus, I think that 
> you have to make 
> it clear that this applies only to faults that are NOT SOAP-specific
> faults (MU and 
> VM). Saying that the fault MAY be sent on the transport-specific 
> backchannel is 
> not enough. I think it needs to be made clear when this will be the 
> case and when it 
> will not.
> This is a "Tony's Timeline" issue.  In case of an MU fault, WSA is 
> not engaged and none of the table applies.
> It occurs to me that this distinction might be part of folklore but 
> not really written down anywhere official.
Received on Tuesday, 15 August 2006 00:30:28 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:04:14 UTC