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

RE: Issue 011

From: Martin Gudgin <mgudgin@microsoft.com>
Date: Sat, 6 Nov 2004 01:01:29 -0800
Message-ID: <DD35CC66F54D8248B6E04232892B633803E00B6B@RED-MSG-43.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "Glen Daniels" <gdaniels@sonicsoftware.com>, "Greg Truty" <gtruty@us.ibm.com>, <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Glen Daniels
> Sent: 04 November 2004 20:28
> To: Greg Truty; public-ws-addressing@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Issue 011
> 
> 
> 
> Hi Greg:
> 
> You make a fine point below, and indeed it may be quite reasonable to
> decide that <wsa:To> shouldn't be an entire EPR due to the potential
> costs of copying the whole thing.  Of course, those costs also exist
> when serializing a <ReplyTo> or <FaultTo> EPR, which will be 
> very common
> to do for many MEPs, or even a <From>.

But ReplyTo/FaultTo/From are *fundamentally* different to To. To use the
postal analogy, To is the address visible to the postman, while
From/ReplyTo/FaultTo are the address(es) you put at the top of a letter.

> 
> Perhaps this should open some questions about levels of serialization
> for EPRs - for instance, if I know (through previous interaction or
> out-of-band agreement) the complete (and very complex) policy for an
> endpoint I'll be replying to, is it necessary for them to 
> serialize the
> entire policy in the <ReplyTo> EPR?

In a very common case (request-reply) the recipient of the message
certainly knows some of the metadata related to the reply.

Gudge
Received on Saturday, 6 November 2004 09:02:02 GMT

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