A fault without consequence might be best
omitted or described as simply informative and if so of what.
Thanks
-bob
From: Doug Davis
[mailto:]
Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2006 1:23
PM
To:
Subject: RE: [ws-rx] proposal to
address issue 140
I don't understand what is not clear with that fault.
-Doug
"Patil, Sanjay" <>
07/27/2006 01:10 PM
To
"Bob Freund-Hitachi" <>, "[WS-RX]" <>
cc
Subject
RE: [ws-rx] proposal to address issue 140
Hi Bob/Anish, thanks for producing the proposal.
Can the proponents of the MakeConnection solution (or any
body else for that matter) suggest text for elucidating the Unsupported
Selection fault?
- Sanj
From: Bob Freund-Hitachi
[mailto:]
Sent: Thursday, Jul 27, 2006 2:59 AM
To: [WS-RX]
Subject: [ws-rx] proposal to address issue 140
Anish
has been kind enough to prepare the attached draft proposal to address issue
140.
While
preparing this draft, some additional points were raised which we enumerate
below:
Sequence
Terminated Fault:
There
is no text that details under what conditions a sequence terminated fault might
be raised other than mention of a vague “protocol error”.
One
way to address this is to list some or all of the conditions in section 4,
however it is more concise to represent these in the state tables of appendix D
were normative.
Unsupported
Selection
This
fault description deserves elucidation
Thanks
-bob
