Issue 102: Clarify Rules for Delivering Fault Messages

The TBTF discussed the proposed resolution to issue 102 [1] and would like
to recommend closure of issue 102 as follows.

Part 1 Section 5.3 "Binding Framework" [5] states:

<quote>

As described above, SOAP can be augmented with optional features, (such as
reliable message delivery, request/response MEPs, multicast MEPs, etc.). The
specification of each such feature MUST include the following:

1. The information (state) required at each node to implement the feature.

2. The processing required at each node in order to fulfill the obligations
of the feature.

3. The information transmitted from node to node, and in the case of MEPs,
any requirements to generate additional messages (such as responses to
requests in a request/response MEP).

</quote>

I propose that the third list item be amended as follows:

<proposedText>
3. The information transmitted from node to node, and in the case of MEPs,
any requirements to generate additional messages (such as responses to 
requests in a request/response MEP)>> and rules for the delivery or 
other disposition of SOAP faults generated during the operation of the 
MEP<<. 
</proposedText>

The proposed text differs from the earlier proposal [1] in that the
additional clause is added at the end of the sentence rather than in the
middle.

Best regards

Stuart
[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2002Jan/0403.html

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Williams, Stuart [mailto:skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com]
> Sent: 29 January 2002 18:12
> To: 'xml-dist-app@w3.org'
> Subject: TBTF: Issue 102: Clarify Rules for Delivering Fault Messages
> 
> 
> On today's TBTF Telcon the TBTF broadly agreed that the 
> responsibility for
> defining the rules for delivering fault messages generated 
> during a SOAP
> message exchange rests with message exchange pattern specifications.
> 
> I picked up the action to review our current working draft [1,2] to
> determine whether they artiuclate a requirement that an MEP 
> specification
> MUST include a description of rules to applied to the 
> delivery of fault
> messages when the corresponding MEP is in operation.
> 
> Currently the SOAP Protocol Binding Framework [3] does NOT 
> articulate such a
> requirement on MEP specifications, although it should be 
> noted that the
> Request Response MEP description at [4] does infact specify 
> the rules for
> the delivery of faults when that MEP is in operation.
> 
> 
> I would like to make the following proposal which I hope will 
> lead to the
> closure of Issue 102.
> 
> Part 1 Section 5.3 "Binding Framework" [5] states:
> 
> <quote>
> 
> As described above, SOAP can be augmented with optional 
> features, (such as
> reliable message delivery, request/response MEPs, multicast 
> MEPs, etc.). The
> specification of each such feature MUST include the following:
> 
> 1. The information (state) required at each node to implement 
> the feature.
> 
> 2. The processing required at each node in order to fulfill 
> the obligations
> of the feature.
> 
> 3. The information transmitted from node to node, and in the 
> case of MEPs,
> any requirements to generate additional messages (such as responses to
> requests in a request/response MEP).
> 
> </quote>
> 
> I propose that the third list item be amended as follows:
> 
> <proposedText>
> 3. The information transmitted from node to node, and in the 
> case of MEPs,
> >> rules for the delivery or other disposition of SOAP faults 
> generated
> during the operation of the MEP and<< any requirements to generate
> additional messages (such as responses to requests in a 
> request/response
> MEP). 
> </proposedText>
> 
> Regards
> 
> Stuart Williams
> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/soap12-part1/
> [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/soap12-part2/
> [3] http://www.w3.org/TR/soap12-part1/#transpbindframew
> [4] http://www.w3.org/TR/soap12-part2/#ND5B
> [5] http://www.w3.org/TR/soap12-part1/#NA90
>

Received on Friday, 1 February 2002 20:06:26 UTC