Tom Rutt wrote:
This
section is about rm faults.
Ok. if it is not about DE and generic Faults, what is the chance
that BOTH RM Fault and SOAP Fault
need to be sent. I can't think of any cases myself.
Even if there are few chances, since it is not for all cases, we have
to say "the
underlying protocol
response MUST contain a SOAP Fault (in the SOAP Body) if exists
one in addition to the
appropriate RM Fault (in the SOAP Header).".
The
clarification about duplicate elilmination needs to go in section 4,
where duplicate elimination
element is defined.
There we have three options, which are up for debate:
1) allow the receiving rmp to cache the earlier response and send it
with the ack for the duplicate incoke
2) allow the receiving rmo to send nothing in the soap body. Since the
sending RMP was responsible for the second invoke, it can filter out
the second ack with the empty body. It will not deliver it to the
sender. There is a small case where the original response is lost, in
which case the sender does not get the response. This would be
the case with sending a soap fault as well.
3) send a soap fault with tha duplicat ack. This bothers some, since
it is not a fault condition, and the
sending rmp can filter out the second ack and not deliver it.
Tom Rutt
Sunil Kunisetty wrote:
