on the need for a reopening an issue on soap fault with rm faultwhen no payload

Sunil has, in his emails on the subject
The mails I've sent on this thread:
    http://www.oasis-open.org/archives/wsrm/200406/msg00085.html
    http://www.oasis-open.org/archives/wsrm/200406/msg00108.html
    http://www.oasis-open.org/archives/wsrm/200406/msg00110.html
    http://www.oasis-open.org/archives/wsrm/200406/msg00115.html
    http://www.oasis-open.org/archives/wsrm/200406/msg00117.html

made the point that the sending rmp can intercept the rm fault and 
deliver the fault to the producer, without a soap fault.

I think this is a valid implementation, but if the soap fault is 
signalled to the sending rmp it still extracts the wsrm:response from
the header and can do the same thing it would do if the soap body is empty.

I am sorry, I have read these mails three times, and I still do not 
understand the problem with the behaviour
we have in the spec regarding sending the rmfault in a soap
header with a soap fault when there is no payload to put in the soap body.

Tom Rutt

-- 
----------------------------------------------------
Tom Rutt	email: ; 
Tel: +1 732 801 5744          Fax: +1 732 774 5133