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

Re: WS-Addr issues

From: Francisco Curbera <curbera@us.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2004 17:14:16 -0500
To: Doug Davis <dug@us.ibm.com>
Cc: public-ws-addressing@w3.org, public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF1BBD2D2C.091F7A6E-ON85256F42.0079F7A0-85256F42.007A285A@us.ibm.com>





+1 to adding these issues to the list. First is an useful feature; the
others are required clarifications that go beyond pure editorial work.

Paco



                                                                                                                                               
                      Doug                                                                                                                     
                      Davis/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS         To:       public-ws-addressing@w3.org                                                    
                      Sent by:                        cc:                                                                                      
                      public-ws-addressing-req        Subject:  Re: WS-Addr issues                                                             
                      uest@w3.org                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                               
                      11/04/2004 05:02 PM                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                               





Lots of interesting discussions but I was wondering if the lack of a
unanimous answer to these issues means they will be added to the issues
list? :-)
-Doug


                                                                           
 Doug Davis/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS                                              
 Sent by:                                                                  
 public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org                                       
                                                                        To 
                                                    public-ws-addressing@w 
 11/03/2004 11:01 AM                                3.org                  
                                                                        cc 
                                                                           
                                                                   Subject 
                                                    WS-Addr issues         
                                                                           
                                                                           
                                                                           
                                                                           
                                                                           
                                                                           
                                                                           






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 Thursday, 4 November 2004 22:14:59 GMT

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