[Nsi-wg] NSI protocol failed messages

[John MacAuley]

I was actually thinking of keeping the confirmed messages since both the reservationConfirmed and queryConfirmed have different results than the other confirmed messages.  In all cases out failed messages are of the same generic type.

if we did change to have a single confirm message we would need to have a choice with each of the confirmed types inside.  This would lead me to keep them as they are.

John.

On 2011-07-19, at 10:51 PM, Tomohiro Kudoh wrote:

> Hi John,
> 
> If we will introduce common Confirm/Failed messages, would it be
> possible to use an unified reply (or response or whatever) message, and
> make confirm/failed an attribute of it?
> 
> This will make message exchanges looked more symmetrical.
> 
> Tomohiro
> 
> 
> On Tue, 19 Jul 2011 09:51:27 -0600
> John MacAuley <john.macauley at surfnet.nl> wrote:
> 
>> Peoples,
>> 
>> There was a request at OGF 32 this weekend to remove the specific operation failed messages (reservationFailed, provisionFailed, etc.) and replace them with a common Failed message.  This would also involve moving the existing transactionId into the main XSD message schema so that the failed could be coordinated with the original request.  After further consideration I think that we would be able to do this and reduce the number of types generated by compiling the WSDL.  Does anyone see a reason to keep the individual failed messages given they are all identical and only the element name is changed?
>> 
>> Thank you,
>> John.
> 
> 
> 

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 1791 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/nsi-wg/attachments/20110720/1c6864ca/attachment.bin