RE: [ws-rx] proposal to address issue 140

[Doug Davis <dug@us.ibm.com>]

Didn't say it doesn't have consequences
but they are not controlled by the RM spec.
-Doug

"Bob Freund-Hitachi" <bob.freund@hitachisoftware.com>

07/27/2006 03:18 PM

To	Doug Davis/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS
cc	"[WS-RX]" <ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org>
Subject	RE: [ws-rx] proposal to address issue 140

A fault without consequence
might be best omitted or described as simply informative and if so of what.
Thanks
-bob

---

From: Doug Davis [mailto:dug@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2006 1:23 PM
To: ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [ws-rx] proposal to address issue 140
 

I don't understand what is not clear with that fault.
-Doug

"Patil, Sanjay" <sanjay.patil@sap.com>

07/27/2006 01:10 PM

To	"Bob Freund-Hitachi" <bob.freund@hitachisoftware.com>, "[WS-RX]" <ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org>
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:bob.freund@hitachisoftware.com]
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