W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > January 2002

Re: TBTF: Issue 102: Clarify Rules for Delivering Fault Messages

From: Christopher Ferris <chris.ferris@sun.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 09:38:15 -0500
Message-ID: <3C580557.2080406@sun.com>
To: Marc Hadley <marc.hadley@sun.com>
CC: "Williams, Stuart" <skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, "'xml-dist-app@w3.org'" <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
+1 to Stuart's proposed edits.

Marc Hadley wrote:

> +1 on the proposed resolution.
> 
> Marc.
> 
> Williams, Stuart wrote:
> 
>> On today's TBTF Telcon the TBTF broadly agreed that the responsibility 
>> for
>> defining the rules for delivering fault messages generated during a SOAP
>> message exchange rests with message exchange pattern specifications.
>>
>> I picked up the action to review our current working draft [1,2] to
>> determine whether they artiuclate a requirement that an MEP specification
>> MUST include a description of rules to applied to the delivery of fault
>> messages when the corresponding MEP is in operation.
>>
>> Currently the SOAP Protocol Binding Framework [3] does NOT articulate 
>> such a
>> requirement on MEP specifications, although it should be noted that the
>> Request Response MEP description at [4] does infact specify the rules for
>> the delivery of faults when that MEP is in operation.
>>
>>
>> I would like to make the following proposal which I hope will lead to the
>> closure of Issue 102.
>>
>> Part 1 Section 5.3 "Binding Framework" [5] states:
>>
>> <quote>
>>
>> As described above, SOAP can be augmented with optional features, 
>> (such as
>> reliable message delivery, request/response MEPs, multicast MEPs, 
>> etc.). The
>> specification of each such feature MUST include the following:
>>
>> 1. The information (state) required at each node to implement the 
>> feature.
>>
>> 2. The processing required at each node in order to fulfill the 
>> obligations
>> of the feature.
>>
>> 3. The information transmitted from node to node, and in the case of 
>> MEPs,
>> any requirements to generate additional messages (such as responses to
>> requests in a request/response MEP).
>>
>> </quote>
>>
>> I propose that the third list item be amended as follows:
>>
>> <proposedText>
>> 3. The information transmitted from node to node, and in the case of 
>> MEPs,
>>
>>>> rules for the delivery or other disposition of SOAP faults generated
>>>>
>> during the operation of the MEP and<< any requirements to generate
>> additional messages (such as responses to requests in a request/response
>> MEP). </proposedText>
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Stuart Williams
>> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/soap12-part1/
>> [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/soap12-part2/
>> [3] http://www.w3.org/TR/soap12-part1/#transpbindframew
>> [4] http://www.w3.org/TR/soap12-part2/#ND5B
>> [5] http://www.w3.org/TR/soap12-part1/#NA90
>>
> 
> 
Received on Wednesday, 30 January 2002 09:39:45 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:06 GMT