- From: Marc Hadley <Marc.Hadley@Sun.COM>
- Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 13:52:04 -0500
- To: public-ws-addressing@w3.org
Issue 28[1] concerns the implications of the presence of ReplyTo in a
message. Does the presence of a wsa:ReplyTo imply that a reply is
required, does absence of ReplyTo indicate a one-way message ?
<wsa:ReplyTo> is optional and the specification states that:
(i) It "MUST be present if a reply is expected",
(ii) But "If the [reply endpoint] is absent, the contents of the
[source endpoint] may be used to formulate a message to the source."
[reply endpoint] serializes as wsa:ReplyTo, [source endpoint]
serializes as wsa:From.
I.e. <wsa:ReplyTo> must be present, but if not use <wsa:From> instead -
the two statements seem to be contradictory.
If we accept (i) then a typical use of a request response MEP using the
SOAP/HTTP binding would require the presence of the following header
block:
<wsa:ReplyTo>
<wsa:Address>http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/ws/2004/08/addressing/role/
anonymous</wsa:Address>
</wsa:ReplyTo>
This is a lot of bytes that provide no real information. My preference
would be that omission of a ReplyTo is semantically equivalent to its
presence as shown above but that would mean that its presence cannot be
used to determine whether a reply is expected or not.
Marc.
[1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/addr/wd-issues/#i028
---
Marc Hadley <marc.hadley at sun.com>
Web Technologies and Standards, Sun Microsystems.
Received on Wednesday, 10 November 2004 18:52:00 UTC