W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-addressing@w3.org > March 2007

Separate constraints for replies and faults

From: David Hull <dmh@tibco.com>
Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2007 15:12:36 -0500
Message-ID: <45EC79B4.5010203@tibco.com>
To: "public-ws-addressing@w3.org" <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>

I believe I saw a similar question float by recently, but I'm not sure I
saw the answer:

Suppose I want to say "I can send replies either to a third party or
back on the back-channel, but I will only send faults back on the
back-channel".  How would I say this?

>From reading through WS-Policy again, and from Chris's comments, I think
the swimming-downstream way to say this is

     anon is OK for replies
     non-anon is OK for replies
    anon is OK for faults

The normalization rules then expand this combinatorially into what we'd

Is this about right?  If so, just how does that come out in
fully-spelled-out angle brackets?  Frankly, I
find WS-Policy very confusing, but that's more a WS-P issue.
Received on Monday, 5 March 2007 20:13:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:04:15 UTC