W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-addressing@w3.org > February 2006

Re: Choices for CR 20

From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2006 17:01:21 -0500
Message-ID: <c70bc85d0602091401n59f6d4fdya5cc42715d4ba877@mail.gmail.com>
To: David Hull <dmh@tibco.com>
Cc: "public-ws-addressing@w3.org" <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>

As this relates to the TAG's endPointRefs-47 issue, I'd suggest that
an absent wsa:To header should imply that the endpoint address is that
provided in the envelope of the containing application protocol (when
one is in use).  e.g. the HTTP Request-URI on an HTTP hop.


On 2/8/06, David Hull <dmh@tibco.com> wrote:
>  There are basically three choices:
> Status quo.  Missing wsa:To in the infoset means [destination] == anonymous
> in the MAPs, always.
> Limit this defaulting to the context of request-response.  If you want to
> use an anonymous [destination] elsewhere, you have to do so explicitly.
> Get rid of defaulting entirely.  You must always spell out what value you
> want for [destination]. Separately from this, we can place various
> restrictions on the use of anonymous [destination], however it may have
> arisen, as part of resolving CR 18.  For example, in any of the three cases,
> we could say that anonymous [destination] is only allowed for response
> messages as a result of section 3.4.  We could also ban anonymous
> [destination] altogether.
Received on Thursday, 9 February 2006 22:01:24 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:04:12 UTC