I agree with Doug. If there
is additional text needed introducing the fault undelete the lines that do so. J
From: Doug Davis
[mailto:]
Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2006 10:23 AM
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
