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

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

From: Tom Rutt <tom@coastin.com>
Date: Tue, 01 Mar 2005 17:37:56 -0500
Message-ID: <4224EEC4.6090705@coastin.com>
To: tom@coastin.com
CC: "public-ws-addressing@w3.org" <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>

Sorry I meant request message not "epr"

Tom Rutt wrote:

>
> As currently specified, an EPR 

I mean a "message" not "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 22:39:08 GMT

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