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

Re: Why is [message id] required for requests but not for other messages?

From: Conor P. Cahill <concahill@aol.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 10:07:17 -0400
To: "Mark Little" <mark.little@arjuna.com>
cc: "David Hull" <dmh@tibco.com>, "Yalcinalp, Umit" <umit.yalcinalp@sap.com>, "Jonathan Marsh" <jmarsh@microsoft.com>, tom@coastin.com, public-ws-addressing@w3.org
Message-ID: <42B18795.6040708@aol.com>



Mark Little wrote on 6/16/2005, 9:49 AM:

 >
 > I think it more closely maps to the requirements, particularly
 > since you can't have a MessageID/RequestID without a ReplyTo.
 > However, what are the semantics if you have a RequestID and
 > no ReplyTo? Doesn't the syntax of RequestID imply a response
 > is also required and hence the name might still be confusing?
 > (Just playing Devil's Advocate.)

I think a request can always have a RequestID.

I think that if a requestor expects a response they should
positively identify such by having some new datum that
indicates this (perhaps an attribute on the wsa:To).

I think that Replies should go the ReplyTo if specified,
the From if ReplyTo is not specified (and I know that this
brings up more potential issues as to the interpetation
mix of FaultTo/ReplyTo/From).

Conor
Received on Thursday, 16 June 2005 14:07:39 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:35:05 GMT