LC Comment: "... the processor MUST fault" in section 3.2 is vacuous. from David Hull on 2005-05-05 (public-ws-addressing-comments@w3.org from May 2005)

From: David Hull <dmh@tibco.com>
Date: Thu, 05 May 2005 17:23:19 -0400
To: public-ws-addressing-comments@w3.org
Message-id: <427A8EC7.4050008@tibco.com>

Section 3.2 specifies the behavior of a compliant processor when 
constructing the reply to "a WS-Addressing compliant request message".  
Such a message MUST contain a [reply endpoint], by the rules earlier in 
section 3, since a request message expects a reply.  Given this, it is 
not possible that no [reply endpoint] is present when constructing a 
reply under these rules.

The statement should be deleted.

Received on Thursday, 5 May 2005 21:23:24 UTC