Additional information.
Currently section 3.1 states:
"The MessageHeader element MUST be present for Reliable Message, PollRequest
message, Acknowledgment message, or Fault message. The MessageHeader element
includes basic information to be used for a reliable message. This element
includes the following attributes and child elements:"
So Ack and Fault message MUST include
MessageHeader element, according to the current spec.
Is that what we want? I think we should remove
"Acknowledgment message" and "Fault message"
from this sentence.
Do we agree to remove them?
Iwasa
----- Original Message -----
From: "iwasa" <>
To: "Sunil Kunisetty" <>
Cc: "wsrm" <>
Sent: Monday, February 02, 2004 3:05 PM
Subject: Re: [wsrm] Ack message and Fault message
> Sunil,
>
> I found one other question - which is potentially
> new issue.
>
> Before diving into new question,
> let me draw some quick example here
> to make sure what you said:
>
> 1.Normal Ack Message without piggybacking
> <soap:envelope>
> <soap:header>
> <rm:Response>
> <rm:RefToMessageIds>
> <SequenceNumRange/>
> </rm:RefToMessageIds>
> </rm:Response>
> </soap:header>
> <soap:body/>
>
> 2.Fault Message with SOAP1.1
> <soap:envelope>
> <soap:header>
> <rm:Fault>xxxx Fault</rm:Fault>
> </soap:header>
> <soap:body/>
>
> What I wanted to make sure were:
> 1. Ack message without piggybacking
> do not include <rm:Header> element.
> 2. Fault message without piggybacking
> do not include <rm:Header> element.
> And it seems to be correct with Sunil's reply.
>
> The new question is how we can notify
> MessageId in the Fault Message.
> I believe Fault message have to include
> RefToMessageId for the fault.
> Example 2 above can't identify the original
> message that caused the fault.
>
> There are three ways to fix this issue:
> The first one is Fault message also include Response
> element(Example 3 below).
>
> The second one is
> to change location of Fault element as child element
> of Response element and allow it appears for Fault
> message only.
>
> The third one is
> to add new Code element and RefToMessageId
> element under Fault element(Example 5 below).
> And I prefer the last one, since the first two may be
> confusing. How do you think?
>
> 3.Candidate Fault Message with SOAP1.1 (1)
> <soap:envelope>
> <soap:header>
> <rm:Response>
> <rm:RefToMessageIds>
> <SequenceNumRange/>
> </rm:RefToMessageIds>
> </rm:Response>
> <rm:Fault>xxxx Fault</rm:Fault>
> </soap:header>
> <soap:body/>
>
> 4.Candidate Fault Message with SOAP1.1 (2)
> <soap:envelope>
> <soap:header>
> <rm:Response>
> <rm:Fault>xxxx Fault</rm:Fault>
> <rm:RefToMessageIds>
> <SequenceNumRange/>
> </rm:RefToMessageIds>
> </rm:Response>
> <rm:Fault>xxxx Fault</rm:Fault>
> </soap:header>
> <soap:body/>
>
> 5.Candidate Fault Message with SOAP1.1 (3)
> <soap:envelope>
> <soap:header>
> <rm:Fault>
> <rm:Code>xxxx Fault</rm:Code>
> <rm:RefToMessageIds>
> <SequenceNumRange/>
> </rm:RefToMessageIds>
> </rm:Fault>
> </soap:header>
> <soap:body/>
>
> If I misunderstood or I am missing something,
> please let me know.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Iwasa
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Sunil Kunisetty" <>
> To: "iwasa" <>
> Cc: "wsrm" <>
> Sent: Saturday, January 31, 2004 1:07 AM
> Subject: Re: [wsrm] Ack message and Fault message
>
>
> >
> > Iwasa,
> >
> > Ack. is ALWAYS included in the Response element and MessageHeader
> > has to exist for every RM message. This is the case even for
> piggybacking.
> > The difference between a normal ack. and piggybacked ack. is that, in
the
> > latter case the (ack|fault) response is sent along with another
requeust,
> > which means it will have a MessageHeader, Request, and Response
element.
> > A normal ack. just has a MessageHeader and Response
> >
> > The same applies for Faults (the difference being instead of using
> Response
> > element, we will be usiing the Fault element) also except that for a
SOAP
> 1.2
> > RM msg, we never use the Fault element.
> >
> > HTH,
> > -Sunil
> >
> > iwasa wrote:
> >
> > > All,
> > >
> > > I'm working on the examples. And I think I need to make
> > > sure that:
> > > 1) The Acknowledgment message is including
> > > Response element, but not MessageHeader element
> > > except piggybacking. Is this correct?
> > > 2) The Fault message is including Fault element,
> > > but not MessageHeader element exept piggybacking.
> > > Is this also correct?
> > >
> > > There is no statement for 2) above in the spec.
> > >
> > > If there is no argument, I will include some text to resolve
> > > this.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > > Iwasa
> > >
> > > To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster
of
> the OASIS TC), go to
>
http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsrm/members/leave_workgroup.php.
> >
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster of
the OASIS TC), go to
http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsrm/members/leave_workgroup.php.
>
