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

Proposed resolution for Issue 50 (Misallignment of faut to and reply to )

From: Tom Rutt <tom@coastin.com>
Date: Tue, 01 Mar 2005 17:21:19 -0500
Message-ID: <4224EADF.6050806@coastin.com>
To: "public-ws-addressing@w3.org" <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>

As currently specified, an EPR is allowed to have th value “anonymous” 
for the wsa:ReplyTo element. In this case, the reply goes back to the 
sender over the HTTP response, just as if not using addressing.

I would like to have an optimization (just as we did for wsa:To) that 
absence of wsa:ReplyTo is semantically equivalent to using the 
“anonymous” value.

Also: we almost agreed to have missing FaultTo implying use of ReplyTo 
when a fault is to be sent.

Proposal to resolve Issue 50:

First cut at text to add to the spec in definition of wsa:ReplyTo:
“
In the case of a message for which a reply is expected, the implied 
semantics of wsa:ReplyTo not present are equivalent to it being present 
with the anonymous URI.
“

In the definition for wsa:FaultTo, add the statement:
“
If wsa:FaultTo is absent, a Fault may be sent to the value (explicit or 
through the implicit indication of “anonymous”) for wsa:ReplyTo..



-- 
----------------------------------------------------
Tom Rutt	email: tom@coastin.com; trutt@us.fujitsu.com
Tel: +1 732 801 5744          Fax: +1 732 774 5133
Received on Tuesday, 1 March 2005 22:22:44 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:35:04 GMT