W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-addressing@w3.org > February 2005

Re: Issue i044: Definition of the rules to reply to a message in Core 3.2

From: Doug Davis <dug@us.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2005 08:39:53 -0500
To: Hugo Haas <hugo@w3.org>
Cc: public-ws-addressing@w3.org
Message-ID: <OFA4A66336.55F874E3-ON85256FA1.0049E334-85256FA1.004B109D@us.ibm.com>
Hugo wrote on 02/07/2005 04:44:08 AM:
...
> Otherwise, if the reply is a fault message and the incoming message's
> [fault endpoint] message addressing property is not empty, select the
> EPR from this property. If the [fault endpoint] property is empty, the
> behavior of the recipient of the incoming message is undefined.

In particular, the "... is undefined." in the last sentence.
I read this to mean that as the sender of the incoming message I
can not make any assumption about where any possible Fault would go
if I did not include a wsa:FaultTo EPR in the incoming message.
Is this correct?  If so, does this not have the effect of making the 
wsa:FaultTo 
EPR required for all cases except in a one-way fire-n-forget scenario?
If so, that's ok (I guess :-), but I think it would be helpful to
encourage people (with a 'SHOULD' someplace) to include a wsa:FaultTo
so that they avoid 'undefined' behavior and risk interop issues.
-Dug
Received on Monday, 7 February 2005 13:40:26 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:35:03 GMT