- From: Anish Karmarkar <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com>
- Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2005 12:14:55 -0800
- To: nahudson@sqc.co.uk
- CC: "public-ws-addressing@w3.org " <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>
Neil, The WS-Addressing WG discussed your email at [1] during last week's concall. Although this is not an official WG endorsed response, the WG asked me to respond to your email based on the discussions on the call. >[1] Question on the Null 202 Response? > >Does the reply have to have an empty HTTP body or is it just that there >is >no Soap Body inside the reply? What meaningful information could be >contained in a non empty HTTP body? The BP 1.1 states that for one-way >operation there is no Soap Envelope in the response, should these two >patterns be consistent? The authors of the proposal confirmed that the reply had to have an empty HTTP entity body (and not empty SOAP body). It was a typo. >[2] Exceptional Cases - Sending Faults to the 'Wrong' Place WS-Addressing does not change the SOAP processing model (when bound to SOAP). Processing of a SOAP message may result in fault(s) (such as a mustUnderstand fault). There is no requirement in the SOAP processing model as to where (and how) the faults are sent, if they are sent at all. SOAP distinguishes between "generating" a fault and "sending" a fault. The SOAP processing model talks only about generating a fault. Whether a generated fault is sent back to the sender of the message or not may depend on the underlying transport, underlying binding used, security considerations, application specific semantics, policies, MEPs etc. A similar issue was discussed before [2] and the WG concluded that wsa:FaultTo applies only if the receiver can understand WS-A and can process the message/headers. The WG decided not to include anything in the spec to call this out, as this would be repeating what the SOAP specification already says. Thanks and regards. -Anish -- [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2005Nov/0062.html [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing-comments/2005Jun/0003.html
Received on Monday, 28 November 2005 20:15:06 UTC