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

RE: Demonstrating the obvious

From: <paul.downey@bt.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 16:45:47 -0000
Message-ID: <2B7789AAED12954AAD214AEAC13ACCEF2709E14B@i2km02-ukbr.domain1.systemhost.net>
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 GMT

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