- From: Mark Nottingham <mark.nottingham@bea.com>
- Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2004 17:54:16 -0500
- To: Rich Salz <rsalz@datapower.com>
- Cc: public-ws-addressing@w3.org
This is now issue i030: http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/addr/wd-issues/#i030 On Nov 3, 2004, at 1:34 PM, Rich Salz wrote: > >> 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 > > > -- Mark Nottingham Principal Technologist Office of the CTO BEA Systems
Received on Thursday, 4 November 2004 22:54:21 UTC