W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-addressing@w3.org > November 2004

WS-Addr issues

From: Doug Davis <dug@us.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2004 11:01:47 -0500
To: public-ws-addressing@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF18F86318.D6993F43-ON85256F41.0056402C-85256F41.00580E4D@us.ibm.com>
I might have missed a formal request for "issues" from the public but 
since it appears there is now an issues list I thought I'd make some 
suggestions on possible issues for the WG's consideration:

issue: EPRs have WSDL bits - e.g. PortType, ServiceName.  But no pointer 
to the actual WSDL itself - why not?  W/o the WSDL do these values mean 
anything?  And if we assume the consumer of the EPR has the WSDL why can't 
we assume they know the PortType and ServiceName?  Perhaps an example of 
how this would be used would clarify it for me.

issue: If a response message is expected then a wsa:ReplyTo MUST be 
included.  Does the absence of a wsa:ReplyTo imply a one-way message?  The 
spec seems to come very close to saying that.  And does the presence of 
wsa:ReplyTo imply a two-way message?  My preference would be to have a 
clear statement so that upon inspection of the message itself a processor 
can know if its a one-way or two-way w/o having to go back to the wsdl.

issue: wsa:FaultTo:  "This property may be absent if the sender cannot 
receive fault messages (e.g. is a one-way application message)."  But it 
also says that in the absence of wsa:FaultTo the wsa:ReplyTo/From may be 
used.  So, how does a client really say that it doesn't want ANY fault 
messages at all but still be allowed to specify a wsa:From?

thanks
-Doug
Received on Wednesday, 3 November 2004 16:18:01 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:34:59 GMT