- From: <paul.downey@bt.com>
- Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 16:45:47 -0000
- To: <nilo.mitra@ericsson.com>, <dmh@tibco.com>, <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>
Nilo > This would IMO mean small changes to the Core (changes > highlighted ***thus***): > > [reply endpoint] : endpoint reference ***(0..N) where N>=1*** > An endpoint reference for the intended receiver for replies > to this message. If a reply is expected, a message MUST > contain ****at least one*** [reply endpoint]. The sender MUST > use the contents of the ***chosen*** [reply endpoint] to > formulate the reply message as defined in 3.2 Formulating a > Reply Message. If this property is present, the [message id] > property is REQUIRED. ***The semantics and usage of such > multiple end points is outside the scope of this specification.*** > > ..or words to that effect. this seems similar to proposal #3 made for closing issue 9: http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/addr/wd-issues/#i009 except that the mechanism by which the reply endpoint is chosen is left outside of the scope of this specification. In which case some additional extension mechanism or out of band agreement will be required anyway. Paul
Received on Wednesday, 23 March 2005 16:46:21 UTC