Re: [wsrm] Jacques proposal for Respond primitive uploaded

Latest draft has the following lines (955-960)  in section 4.5 which I
think is inappropriate:

 See the mail I sent yesterday. This needs to be corrected.

When the Response RM-Reply Pattern is in use and

the message cannot be delivered to the Consumer, the
underlying protocol response

MUST contain a SOAP Fault (in the SOAP Body) in addition to the
appropriate RM

Fault (in the SOAP Header). The sending RMP and producer
expect either a

complete response or a SOAP Fault when using the Response RM-Reply
Pattern and

this requirement satisfies those expectations.

 Mail I sent yesterday on this topic:

 Is the above comment specific to Duplicate Elimination case or a
generic failure (to deliver) case?

 If former, then there is NO RM fault for Duplicate messages. So the
above should be better

 qualified as "in addition to the RM Fault if exists one".

 If it is the latter, why do we need to send *both*
RM fault and SOAP Fault. The Sending RMP

 will convert/translate a RM Fault either as a SOAP Exception or a API
specific exception.

 So we don't need both.

 If we have to say SOAP Fault is sent, don't we need better sub-codes
for interoperability?

  -Sunil

Tom Rutt wrote:

I just
uploaded Jacques proposal for a Respond Primitive as editing draft
1.01J.
  

  

This proposal does not address the most recent concerns on the mailing
list, and is not yet agreed.
  

  

  

The pdf with diff from editing draft 1.01I is at:
  

http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsrm/download.php/7188/EditingDraft101Jdiff101I.pdf
  

  

  

The open office source is at:
  

http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsrm/download.php/7189/Contribution-EditingDraft101J-Jacques.sxw