If I understand it correctly, Bob is uncomfortable with the table saying
'unspecified' for both 'Action upon generation' and 'Action upon receipt'.
-Anish
--
Doug Davis wrote:
>
> 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
