- From: Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
- Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2005 14:24:42 -0700
- To: <public-ws-addressing-comments@w3.org>
Section 5.1 states '[Detail] [invalid property]' It is unclear from this terse description precisely what is to be returned. A URI naming the property? An XML representation of the property? The offending SOAP header? In removing the term Message Information Header from the spec this fault seems to have gotten messed up a bit. We feel the most direct way to communicate a SOAP fault is to indicate which header caused the fault. We therefore suggest changing the name and specification of this fault to be more header-centric. To denote the header that caused the problem without causing message bloat that could be used to mount distributed denial of service attacks, we suggest returning only the QName of the offending header. Replace Section 5.1 as follows: -------- 5.1 Invalid Addressing Header A header representing a WS-Addressing 1.0 Message Addressing Property cannot be processed. [Code] S:Sender [Subcode] wsa:InvalidAddressingHeader [Reason] A header representing a Message Addressing Property is not valid and the message cannot be processed. The validity failure can be either structural or semantic, e.g. a [destination] that is not an IRI or a [relationship] to a [message id] that was never issued. [Detail] [Invalid header QName] ------- Similar problems exist in Section 5.2 (what is a [missing property QName]?). Replace Section 5.2 as follows: ----- 5.2 Message Addressing Header Required A required header representing a message addressing property is absent. [Code] S:Sender [Subcode] wsa:MessageAddressingHeaderRequired [Reason] A required header representing a message addressing property is not present. [Detail] [Missing header QName] ------
Received on Tuesday, 12 April 2005 21:24:57 UTC