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

RE: i029 Disallowing Faults

From: <paul.downey@bt.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 13:36:52 -0000
Message-ID: <2B7789AAED12954AAD214AEAC13ACCEF2709DD32@i2km02-ukbr.domain1.systemhost.net>
To: <hreynolds@webmethods.com>, <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>
Harris wrote:
> "wsa:FaultTo "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
> sender really say that it doesn't want ANY fault messages at all but still
> be allowed to specify a wsa:From?"

my preference is to make a missing FaultTo value mean the same as the
ReplyTo value, and have an explicit URI to indicate /dev/null.
 
i'm of the same opinion for i0028 *if* we allow ReplyTo to be missing,
then an exlicit /dev/null URI should be used to indicate no reply required.

> This is essentially asking for a "fire and forget" MEP that will never
> receive a reply even under fault conditions.  I am struggling with whether
> this condition actually falls within the scope of WS-A. 

the receiver may require other WS-A headers such as wsa:action, even 
though the sender which doesn't want to receive a reply and/or fault.
 
Paul
Received on Friday, 12 November 2004 13:36:21 GMT

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