RE: SOAP Proposal Documents

[Dick Brooks <dick@8760.com>]

Marc,

I see some ambiguity arising and I want to be certain everyone understands
what I was proposing/not proposing.

I am NOT proposing that ebXML deviate from the SOAP spec with regard to the
use of HTTP 500 to report on errors that occur
at the SOAP layer (e.g. missing Body element, invalid value for
mustUnderstand, etc.).

I AM proposing that ebXML errors (contained in a ErrorList) be reported via
a HTTP 200 response AND via a HTTP POST method, separate from
SOAP-ENV:Fault.

Said another way, I'm proposing that an ebXML MSH MUST be capable of
generating/processing:
    SOAP errors using a HTTP 500 response
AND ebXML errors using a HTTP 200 response OR an HTTP POST.

I don't want to put words in your mouth, please correct me if I'm wrong, but
I believe you are proposing:

An ebXML MSH MUST be capable of generating/processing ALL SOAP and ebXML
errors using a SOAP-ENV:Fault and a HTTP 500 response.


Note: Our course of action regarding this issue depends somewhat on how
current SOAP processors handle "extraneous" elements within a
SOAP-ENV:Fault. We discussed this topic yesterday on a con-call with Henrik
and he is going to tell us how current SOAP processors deal with deal with
this situation. I really wish you were on the call yesterday.

Regards,

Dick Brooks
Group 8760
110 12th Street North
Birmingham, AL 35203
dick@8760.com
205-250-8053
Fax: 205-250-8057
http://www.8760.com/

InsideAgent - Empowering e-commerce solutions