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

Re: WS-Addr issues

From: Mark Nottingham <mark.nottingham@bea.com>
Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2004 17:54:16 -0500
Message-Id: <746B8633-2EB4-11D9-95F2-000A95BD86C0@bea.com>
Cc: public-ws-addressing@w3.org
To: Rich Salz <rsalz@datapower.com>

This is now issue i030:
   http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/addr/wd-issues/#i030



On Nov 3, 2004, at 1:34 PM, Rich Salz wrote:

>
>> 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
>
>
>

--
Mark Nottingham   Principal Technologist
Office of the CTO   BEA Systems
Received on Thursday, 4 November 2004 22:54:21 GMT

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