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

Re: WS-Addr issues

From: Doug Davis <dug@us.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2004 13:44:20 -0500
To: Rich Salz <rsalz@datapower.com>
Cc: "public-ws-addressing@w3.org" <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>
Message-ID: <OF50759966.379912A0-ON85256F41.00669AEE-85256F41.0066F00E@us.ibm.com>
In that case the wsa:ReplyTo would be the anonymous URI - so the MUST 
shouldn't be an issue.
-Dug




Rich Salz <rsalz@datapower.com> 
11/03/2004 01:34 PM

To
Doug Davis/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS
cc
"public-ws-addressing@w3.org" <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>
Subject
Re: WS-Addr issues






> 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.

I have issues with wsa:ReplyTo as well.  While it would be nice to tell
just from a message whether or not a response it coming back, I think the
MUST requirement is too limiting.  A sender may not know its address, it
may be going through NAT gateways, or whatever.  And if the response is
just coming back, e.g., as an HTTP response, there really is no need to
require this element.

                 /r$

--
Rich Salz                  Chief Security Architect
DataPower Technology       http://www.datapower.com
XS40 XML Security Gateway  http://www.datapower.com/products/xs40.html
XML Security Overview      
http://www.datapower.com/xmldev/xmlsecurity.html
Received on Wednesday, 3 November 2004 18:45:46 GMT

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