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: Tom Rutt <tom@coastin.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2005 14:22:55 -0500
Message-ID: <4210FA8F.5090008@coastin.com>
To: Hugo Haas <hugo@w3.org>
CC: public-ws-addressing@w3.org

Hugo Haas wrote:

> Because the discussion that followed my second proposal, I thought it
> would be useful to recap the issues that i044 exhibited.
>
> First, here is my second proposal with Marc's fix about the nature of
> [message id], and "undefined" being changed into "unconstrained by
> this specification" (more below about that). I also noted that my
> proposed rules were missing something: if a reply is expected and no
> reply-to is specified, then the processor must fault; I have fixed
> this.
>
Does "a reply" mean an "application level response to the message sent 
using ws-addressing"?

This is important, since some other soap header based
protocols can have their own orthogonal soap header reply mechanisms 
(e.g., for the
ws-Reliability callback reply pattern, a protocol reply soap header is 
sent to a callback address contained  in a ws-Reliability specified soap 
header element sent with the request message ).

I would like to be sure that such a case is not considered a "reply 
using ws-addressing".

Tom Rutt

> ----8<--
>
> The reply to an incoming message using WS-Addressing is constructed as
> follows.
>
> 1. Select the appropriate EPR
>
> If the reply is a normal message, select the EPR from the incoming 
> message's
> [reply endpoint] message addressing property. If none is present, the
> processor MUST fault.
>
> 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 unconstrained by
> this specification.
>
> 2. Populate the reply message's message addressing properties
>
> The following message addressing properties are populated as follows:
> - [destination]: this property takes the value of the selected EPR's
>   [address] property
> - [relationship]: a new pair of URIs is added to this value as
>   follows; the relationship type is the predefined reply URI
>   http://www.w3.org/@@@@/@@/addressing/reply and the related message's
>   identifier is the [message id] property value from the message being
>   replied to; other relationships MAY be expressed in this property
> - [reference parameters]: this property takes the value of the
>   selected EPR's [reference parameters] property
>
> -->8----
>
> The discussion around this proposal (which prompted the rewording of
> "undefined") is about the following: in the case of faults and the
> absence of [fault endpoint], our spec doesn't define any particular
> behavior; IOW, a processor does whatever it would do if addressing
> wasn't present (e.g. send a fault back to the sender on an HTTP
> response for a request-response over HTTP).
>
> People have expressed discomfort (which I share) as section 3 presents
> faults as replies, and normal replies are treated very differently: a
> [reply endpoint] MAP is required if a reply is expected, i.e. if
> Addressing was in use, and no [reply endpoint] was specified, a fault
> would be raised.
>
> At this point, I think that we need to have a discussion on the call
> about how the Group feels about it.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Hugo
>
> -- 
> Hugo Haas - W3C
> mailto:hugo@w3.org - http://www.w3.org/People/Hugo/
>


-- 
----------------------------------------------------
Tom Rutt	email: tom@coastin.com; trutt@us.fujitsu.com
Tel: +1 732 801 5744          Fax: +1 732 774 5133
Received on Monday, 14 February 2005 19:23:34 GMT

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