- From: Marc Hadley <Marc.Hadley@Sun.COM>
- Date: Wed, 03 Nov 2004 14:17:38 -0500
- To: Doug Davis <dug@us.ibm.com>
- Cc: "public-ws-addressing@w3.org" <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>, Rich Salz <rsalz@datapower.com>
On Nov 3, 2004, at 1:44 PM, Doug Davis wrote: > > In that case the wsa:ReplyTo would be the anonymous URI - so the MUST > shouldn't be an issue. > I think it would be preferable to allow omission of ReplyTo rather than require inclusion of the element with a specific value. The two could be specified to be equivalent. Marc. > > > issue: If a response message is expected then a wsa:ReplyTo MUST be > > included. Does the absence of a wsa:ReplyTo imply a one-way > message? The > > spec seems to come very close to saying that. And does the > presence of > > wsa:ReplyTo imply a two-way message? My preference would be to > have a > > clear statement so that upon inspection of the message itself a > processor > > can know if its a one-way or two-way w/o having to go back to the > wsdl. > > I have issues with wsa:ReplyTo as well. While it would be nice to > tell > just from a message whether or not a response it coming back, I think > the > MUST requirement is too limiting. A sender may not know its address, > it > may be going through NAT gateways, or whatever. And if the response > is > just coming back, e.g., as an HTTP response, there really is no need > to > require this element. > > /r$ > > -- > Rich Salz Chief Security Architect > DataPower Technology http://www.datapower.com > XS40 XML Security Gateway http://www.datapower.com/products/xs40.html > XML Security Overview > http://www.datapower.com/xmldev/xmlsecurity.html > > > --- Marc Hadley <marc.hadley at sun.com> Web Technologies and Standards, Sun Microsystems.
Received on Wednesday, 3 November 2004 19:17:40 UTC