RE: i029 Disallowing Faults

Harris wrote:
> "wsa:FaultTo "may be absent if the sender cannot receive fault messages
> (e.g. is a one-way application message)." But it also says that in the
> absence of wsa:FaultTo the wsa:ReplyTo/From may be used. So, how does a
> sender really say that it doesn't want ANY fault messages at all but still
> be allowed to specify a wsa:From?"

my preference is to make a missing FaultTo value mean the same as the
ReplyTo value, and have an explicit URI to indicate /dev/null.
 
i'm of the same opinion for i0028 *if* we allow ReplyTo to be missing,
then an exlicit /dev/null URI should be used to indicate no reply required.

> This is essentially asking for a "fire and forget" MEP that will never
> receive a reply even under fault conditions.  I am struggling with whether
> this condition actually falls within the scope of WS-A. 

the receiver may require other WS-A headers such as wsa:action, even 
though the sender which doesn't want to receive a reply and/or fault.
 
Paul

Received on Friday, 12 November 2004 13:36:21 UTC