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: Winkler, Steve <steve.winkler@sap.com>
Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2005 19:39:47 +0100
Message-ID: <99CA63DD941EDC4EBA897048D9B0061D0F406467@uspalx20a.pal.sap.corp>
To: "Francisco Curbera" <curbera@us.ibm.com>, <tom@coastin.com>
Cc: <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>, <public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org>


+1

>-----Original Message-----
>From: public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org 
>[mailto:public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org] 
>Sent: Thursday, Mar 03, 2005 10:16 AM
>To: tom@coastin.com
>Cc: public-ws-addressing@w3.org; public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org
>Subject: Re: Proposed resolution for Issue 50 (Misallignment 
>of faut to and reply to )
>
>
>-0.5
>
>Omitting replyTo when a reply is expected and defaulting to 
>anonymous seems
>like a harmless  optimization. However, it changes the semantics of the
>spec considerably by stating that for every message sent there is (by
>default) a channel to send responses back. This is just not the case,
>unless we start forcing all http senders to implicitly accept 
>synchronous
>replies or actively provide a new endpoint to accept the 
>replies. Makes no
>sense to me.
>
>So I agree (that was my proposal at the f2f) tht we should 
>clarify the text
>by stating that faults should be sent to the replyTo endpoint 
>if faultTo is
>absent; but we should also leave the rest of the specification as it is
>today.
>
>Going back to the core of issue 50, I have to repeat the claim 
>I made at
>the f2f that the asymmetry between replyTo and faultTo is just 
>a reflection
>of the asymmetry between normal reply messages and faults. You can
>positively expect a reply to follow your request; if you 
>positively expect
>a fault to follow your request chances are that you will not send the
>message. Faults and regular responses are never treated symmetrically.
>
>Paco
>
>
>
>                                                               
>                                                               
>           
>                      Tom Rutt                                 
>                                                               
>           
>                      <tom@coastin.com>               To:      
> "public-ws-addressing@w3.org" <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>   
>           
>                      Sent by:                        cc:      
>                                                               
>           
>                      public-ws-addressing-req        Subject: 
> Proposed resolution for Issue 50 (Misallignment of faut to 
>and reply  to 
>                      uest@w3.org                      )       
>                                                               
>           
>                                                               
>                                                               
>           
>                                                               
>                                                               
>           
>                      03/01/2005 05:21 PM                      
>                                                               
>           
>                      Please respond to tom                    
>                                                               
>           
>                                                               
>                                                               
>           
>
>
>
>
>
>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 Thursday, 3 March 2005 18:40:31 GMT

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