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

RE: i028: Implications of the presence of ReplyTo

From: Martin Gudgin <mgudgin@microsoft.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 09:58:53 -0800
Message-ID: <DD35CC66F54D8248B6E04232892B633803F295CA@RED-MSG-43.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: <tom@coastin.com>
Cc: "Marc Hadley" <Marc.Hadley@sun.com>, <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tom Rutt [mailto:tom@coastin.com] 
> Sent: 12 November 2004 17:17
> To: Martin Gudgin
> Cc: Marc Hadley; public-ws-addressing@w3.org
> Subject: Re: i028: Implications of the presence of ReplyTo
> 
<SNIP/>
> I really think we all need to understand each other's 
> requirements for 
> ws:addressing.
> 
> With my purchase order example, the address to send the 
> future invoice 
> to (in a subsequent and separate MEP) belongs
> as "application" data.   Thus it should be in the WSDL input message, 
> bound to the body in the soap binding.

And I want people to be able to build protocols this way. That's a
reasonable choice. Other people might choose to use the [reply
endpoint]. We should allow both design styles.

Gudge

<SNIP/>
Received on Friday, 12 November 2004 17:59:20 GMT

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