- 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