- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2006 12:15:59 -0800
- To: Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
- Cc: <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>
Jonathan, Which spec are you referring to -- the WSDL Binding? Just making sure, On 2006/02/06, at 12:53 PM, Jonathan Marsh wrote: > Our spec allows a SOAP module or extension (e.g. reliability, > security, transactions) to define a fault action specific to that > module. The WS-Addressing spec itself defines its own custom fault > action, and recommends one for SOAP-level faults: > > > > The [action] property below designates WS-Addressing fault messages: > > http://www.w3.org/@@@@/@@/addressing/fault > > SOAP modules and extensions MAY define custom [action] values for > the faults they describe or MAY designate use of the following > [action] value instead: > > http://www.w3.org/@@@@/@@/addressing/soap/fault > > The above [action] value SHOULD be used for generic SOAP faults > including version mismatch, must understand, and data encoding > unknown. > > > > We are learning that it is indeed good practice for each SOAP > module or extension to define its own fault action IRIs. This > helps with dispatch, logging, reporting, and recovery from faults. > We’d like to see the SOAP Binding spec encourage other specs to > follow the good practice WS-A defines by strengthening the guidance > to protocol authors about defining fault actions specific to their > protocol. > > > > Proposal – change the above text as follows: > > > > SOAP modules and extensions SHOULD define custom [action] values > for the faults they describe but MAY designate use of the following > [action] value instead: > > > > > > <From>Jonathan Marsh</ From> > > <ReplyTo>jmarsh@microsoft.com</ ReplyTo> > > <RelatesTo>http://spaces.msn.com/members/auburnmarshes/</ RelatesTo> > > > > -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Thursday, 9 February 2006 20:16:09 UTC