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

Re: WS-Addr issues

From: Marc Hadley <Marc.Hadley@Sun.COM>
Date: Wed, 03 Nov 2004 14:17:38 -0500
To: Doug Davis <dug@us.ibm.com>
Cc: "public-ws-addressing@w3.org" <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>, Rich Salz <rsalz@datapower.com>
Message-id: <06A3CB5C-2DCD-11D9-936A-000A95BC8D92@Sun.COM>

On Nov 3, 2004, at 1:44 PM, Doug Davis wrote:
>
> In that case the wsa:ReplyTo would be the anonymous URI - so the MUST 
> shouldn't be an issue.
>
I think it would be preferable to allow omission of ReplyTo rather than 
require inclusion of the element with a specific value. The two could 
be specified to be equivalent.

Marc.

>
> > 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
>
>
>
---
Marc Hadley <marc.hadley at sun.com>
Web Technologies and Standards, Sun Microsystems.
Received on Wednesday, 3 November 2004 19:17:40 GMT

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