RE: LC 76 - What makes a msg WS-A?

 


________________________________

	From: David Hull [mailto:dmh@tibco.com] 
	Sent: 15 July 2005 06:31
	To: Martin Gudgin
	Cc: David Orchard; Katy Warr; public-ws-addressing@w3.org
	Subject: Re: LC 76 - What makes a msg WS-A?
	
	
	Martin Gudgin wrote: 

		 [snip]

			[MJG] How about this? Is wsa:Action is missing
then you MUST proceed as if you DO NOT understand WS-Addressing. And if
wsa:Action is present and any other constraints in the spec are
violated, then you MUST generate a fault. 
			
			The upshot of the first 'MUST' is that during
the mU check, if any wsa: header is found with mU='true' then a check to
make sure wsa:Action is present has to occur to determine whether you
'understand' that wsa: header. Essentially, understanding wsa:Action
becomes part of understanding all the other wsa: headers.
			 
			This approach has the advantage of producing
consistent behaviour between WS-A and non-WS-A nodes for messages that
DO NOT contain wsa:Action. 
			
			

	This helps, I think.  I continue to be uneasy with using the
fact that Action happens to be the one mandatory property that's also a
mandatory header, but at this point, any port in a storm. 
	[MJG] What would make you less uneasy?
	
	If I read this right, the behavior if wsa:ReplyTo is present, mU
false, and no wsa:Action is present, is that the ReplyTo is silently
ignored -- since Action is missing, I have to not understand ReplyTo.
This doesn't seem like a good kind of silent failure, but the client at
least has the option of turning on mU for the ReplyTo if it wants to be
safe. 
	[MJG] Right, if the client cares, it should put mU='true' on the
ReplyTo. 
	
	Where would we say this?  In the SOAP binding? 
	[MJG] That would seem like the most sensible place.