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

Re: Choices for CR 20

From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 14:17:06 -0500
Message-ID: <c70bc85d0602101117o762ebb14g9ff9a2bff0c00bf2@mail.gmail.com>
To: David Hull <dmh@tibco.com>
Cc: "public-ws-addressing@w3.org" <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>

Hi David,

On 2/10/06, David Hull <dmh@tibco.com> wrote:
>  Mark Baker wrote:
>  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.
> Mark.
>  I would see this as applying to CR 18, not CR 20.  CR 20 is a purely
> syntactic question: If you don't see wsa:To, what value (if any) do you
> assign to [destination]?  CR 18 is a semantic question of what do you do
> when you see anonymous in the [destination] (regardless of whether wsa:To
> was anonymous or missing).

Ok, but based on that description it would seem to apply to CR 20.

So, starting with Example 3-2, adding an HTTP envelope, and ripping
off wsa:To , we'd have this;

POST http://example.org/ultimate-destination/ HTTP/1.1
Host: example.org
Content-Type: application/soap+xml
<S:Envelope xmlns:S="http://www.w3.org/2003/05/soap-envelope"

... and the [destination] would be "http://example.org/ultimate-destination/"

Mark Baker.  Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.       http://www.markbaker.ca
Received on Friday, 10 February 2006 19:17:16 UTC

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