- From: Doug Davis <dug@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2004 16:53:34 -0500
- To: public-ws-addressing@w3.org
- Message-ID: <OFD3C54373.B0BCF0D6-ON85256F6C.0077226F-85256F6C.00784325@us.ibm.com>
All, just noticed this: i029 Disallowing Faults ? search core - design - closed Description wsa:FaultTo "may be absent if the sender cannot receive fault messages (e.g. is a one-way application message)." But it also says that in the absence of wsa:FaultTo the wsa:ReplyTo/From may be used. So, how does a sender really say that it doesn't want ANY fault messages at all but still be allowed to specify a wsa:From? Origin Doug Davis Owner Harris Reynolds Resolution2004-12-07 Add "when present" to the second sentence of [fault endpoint] of Core section three; remove third to fifth sentences of [fault endpoint of Core section three (so as to not imply a processing model); make similar changes in [reply endpoint] definition. And the new text for wsa:FaultTo says: [fault endpoint] : endpoint reference (0..1) An endpoint reference that identifies the intended receiver for faults related to this message. When formulating a fault message as defined in 3.2 Formulating a Reply Message, the sender MUST use the contents of the [fault endpoint], when present, of the message being replied to to formulate the fault message. If this property is present, the [message id] property is REQUIRED. So, what does it mean when the wsa:FaultTo header is not present? Does it mean the client will not get back any faults at all or does the fault get sent back to the wsa:ReplyTo EPR? Probably not since the defaulting back to wsa:ReplyTo is not mentioned any more. So, what should the client expect in terms of where Faults will go when wsa:FaultTo is not present? As the text stands now I would guess that no wsa:FaultTo is the same as wsa:FaultTo == anonymousURI - meaning send faults back on the HTTP response flow - is this the new intent? thanks, -Dug
Received on Thursday, 16 December 2004 21:54:07 UTC