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

Re: cr17 (Ümit's OPTIONAL/REQUIRED issue) resolution

From: Marc Hadley <Marc.Hadley@Sun.COM>
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2006 10:19:41 -0500
To: Mark Nottingham <mark.nottingham@bea.com>
Cc: WS-Addressing <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>
Message-id: <43D8E88D.3090409@sun.com>

My apologies for being absent during this discussion but I think this 
resolution introduces a contradiction in the specification and 
eliminates the opportunity for optimizing a common use case (omitting 
wsa:ReplyTo for anonymous replies).

Section 5 of the WSDL binding document defines what abstract MAPs are 
mandatory in each message of the WSDL 1.1 and WSDL 2.0 defined MEPs. In 
each case where there is a reply message in the MEP, the [reply 
endpoint] is marked as mandatory. Previously, when absence of 
wsa:ReplyTo was a syntactic shortcut for inclusion of an anonymous 
[reply endpoint], this requirement would be satisfied using defaulting. 
By removing the defaulting from the infoset serialization we now 
*require* that wsa:ReplyTo always be present when a reply message is 

I see two possible ways forward:

(i) Reinstate the defaulting in the infoset serialization
(ii) Remove all instances of the mandatory [reply endpoint] in WSDL 
binding section 5.

Of the two, I prefer (i) since a simple serialization defaulting scheme 
is simplest to implement.


Mark Nottingham wrote:
> as accepted by the group:
> [ remove defaulting from infoset serialisation ]
> 1. Select the appropriate EPR:
>    a) If the reply is a normal message, select the EPR from the related 
> message's [reply endpoint] message addressing property. If the MAP is 
> not present, use an EPR with the [address] 
> "http://www.w3.org/@@@@/@@/addressing/anonymous" and no other properties.
>    b) Otherwise, if the reply is a fault message and the related 
> message's [fault endpoint] message addressing property is not empty, 
> select the EPR from that property. If the [fault endpoint] property is 
> not present, select the EPR that would have been selected in step (a).
>    c) In either of the above cases (a) or (b), if the related message 
> lacks a [message id] property, the processor MUST fault.
>  2. Send the message according to [section 3.3 Sending a Message to an 
> EPR], but also including:
>     a) [relationship]: this property MUST include a pair of IRIs as 
> follows; the relationship type is the predefined reply URI 
> "http://www.w3.org/@@@@/@@/addressing/reply" and the related message's 
> identifier is the [message id] property value from the message being 
> replied to; other relationships MAY be expressed in this property.
> -- 
> Mark Nottingham   Principal Technologist
> Office of the CTO   BEA Systems
Received on Thursday, 26 January 2006 15:25:27 UTC

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