- From: Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
- Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 16:07:58 -0800
- To: "Mark Nottingham" <mnot@mnot.net>
- Cc: <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>
SOAP Binding spec - it's a CR issue. > -----Original Message----- > From: Mark Nottingham [mailto:mnot@mnot.net] > Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2006 12:16 PM > To: Jonathan Marsh > Cc: public-ws-addressing@w3.org > Subject: Re: New Issue: Strengthen guidance on protocol-specifc fault > action values > > 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 Saturday, 11 February 2006 00:08:12 UTC