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

RE: ISSUE: Where do faults go?

From: Christopher B Ferris <chrisfer@us.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2006 12:41:21 -0500
To: "Glen Daniels" <gdaniels@sonicsoftware.com>
Cc: public-ws-addressing@w3.org, public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org
Message-ID: <OFA6A2E0B1.06AEE565-ON85257130.00605E01-85257130.00612A78@us.ibm.com>
Glen,

CIL below.

Cheers,

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

public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org wrote on 03/13/2006 12:19:12 PM:

> 
> 
> Hi Chris:
> 
> > I would put this in the same class as "where do SOAP mU 
> > faults get delivered". I believe that that should be a 
> > function of the binding, not of WS-A because it is pretty 
> > clear to me that in the face of a SOAP mU (or 
> > VersionMismatch) fault, that WS-A processing cannot be 
> > presumed to have been performed (per the SOAP1.2 spec anyway). 
> 
> As per usual I'll request that we be crystal-clear when talking about
> any overused word like "binding"... you mean "SOAP protocol binding",
> right? :)

correctamundo

> 
> > Thus, I think that an endpoint that includes a non-anonymous 
> > [fault to] endpoint SHOULD expect that it MAY receive SOAP 
> > faults in a manner defined as the default for the relevant 
> > SOAP binding. In the case of the SOAP Req/Resp MEP and SOAP 
> > HTTP binding, that would be the anonymous endpoint. 
> 
> Agreed, the question is just how exactly we say that in our specs in
> such a way as to make the behavior clear for present and future cases.
> 
> > IMO, if a SOAP message contains WS-A headers that are 
> > inconsistent with the spec in any way that the generated 
> > fault SHOULD be sent to the endpoint identified by the 
> > relevant SOAP MEP/binding. 
> 
> This I'm not sure I agree with.  If I send you a single, valid,
> non-anonymous FaultTo header, and duplicate ReplyTo headers (or any
> other WSA screwup), wouldn't you want the fault on the FaultTo EPR?  I

Possibly, but what if the fault is generated *before* the [fault to] is
parsed/processed? Are you suggesting that if a fault is generated that 
processing
of the WS-A headers is to continue? That seems a little odd to me. If
you have an endpoint that is sending garbage in regards to [reply 
endpoint], 
what expectation would you have that the remaining MAPs are coherent? I'd
just as soon consider the whole lot as tainted and send the fault as if
WS-A were not being used.

> suppose actually you need a valid FaultTo and also a valid MessageID for
> correlation in that case, though - but assuming those, wouldn't you send
> other faults to FaultTo?

I'm not convinced. However, the case I was making, possibly poorly, is 
that
no matter what [fault to] says, that the sender of a (request) message 
MUST
be prepared to receive a fault as if WS-A were not in use.

> 
> If we DO mean to say that "any WSA screwup always ignores <FaultTo>" we
> definitely have to make some changes.  Regardless we need to be crisper
> on this.

Agreed, I think. Clarity is always a "Good Thing(tm)".

> 
> Thanks,
> --Glen
> 
Received on Monday, 13 March 2006 17:41:35 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:35:12 GMT