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: Marc Hadley <Marc.Hadley@Sun.COM>
Date: Wed, 02 Mar 2005 16:54:56 -0500
To: Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
Cc: Mark Peel <mpeel@novell.com>, public-ws-addressing@w3.org
Message-id: <65267fd966c35c6b01d8060358be70ba@Sun.COM>

On Mar 2, 2005, at 3:26 PM, Jonathan Marsh wrote:
>
> I thought this was on the list somewhere but I couldn't find it, so 
> I'll
> restate it here.  One benefit we would lose from making wsa:ReplyTo
> optional is an indication in the message whether a reply is expected.
> An intermediary or proxy might use this information to, for example,
> keep a connection open without having a description of the message's 
> MEP
> available.  The information content of a specified wsa:ReplyTo and a
> default value is different.
>
No, we discussed this before[1].

>> 2. when wsa:ReplyTo is present the information is conveyed is:
>>    a) reply expected, and
>>    b) where to send the reply.
>>
> b) yes, but a) is incorrect. You have to include [reply endpoint] if 
> you expect a reply, but just because you include it doesn't mean you 
> expect a reply. I.e. its OK to include it in a message that doesn't 
> expect a reply. E.g. [reply endpoint] is optional in the one-way MEP.

There's no difference in the information content.

Marc.

[1] http://www.w3.org/mid/2EEBCE5C-633C-11D9-99AE-000A95BC8D92@Sun.COM

>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org [mailto:public-ws-
>> addressing-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Mark Peel
>> Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2005 12:08 PM
>> To: public-ws-addressing@w3.org
>> Subject: Re: Proposed resolution for Issue 50 (Misallignment of faut
>> to and reply to )
>>
>>
>>
>> +1 to Dave's approach.  But as for quoting Ockham's Razor as written,
>> I
>> feel we have enough cryptic language to deal with already...  Latinum
>> est; non potest legi.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Mark Peel
>> Web Services Infrastructure
>> Novell, Inc.
>>
>>
>>>>> David Hull <dmh@tibco.com> 03/02/05 9:43 AM >>>
>> I think we're on the same page semantically.  I believe the difference
>>
>> is between saying
>>
>>     * missing => anonymous => binding-specified
>>
>> and
>>
>>     * missing => binding specified
>>
>> For me the latter wins. /Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter
>> necessitatem/.
>>
>>
>
>
>
---
Marc Hadley <marc.hadley at sun.com>
Web Technologies and Standards, Sun Microsystems.
Received on Wednesday, 2 March 2005 21:54:56 GMT

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