- From: Marc Hadley <Marc.Hadley@Sun.COM>
- Date: Thu, 08 Dec 2005 09:39:18 -0500
- To: Dan Diephouse <dan@envoisolutions.com>
- Cc: public-ws-addressing@w3.org
- Message-id: <B75C20C9-EAA9-4A42-B843-F3376E17734C@Sun.COM>
On Dec 8, 2005, at 8:42 AM, Dan Diephouse wrote: > Yes but neither of them explicitly define the ReplyTo endpoint as > far as I can see (and it seems like 1231 should). I found another > person in the ws-addressing-test archives who notes the same thing: > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing-tests/ > 2005Dec/0002.html > I see, I guess I misread your first message. Marc. > > Marc Hadley wrote: >> This may be deliberate. The spec says that if the ReplyTo 'element >> is NOT present then the value of the [address] property of the >> [reply endpoint] EPR is "http://www.w3.org/@@@@/@@/addressing/ >> anonymous"'. The two cases test explicit and implicit anonymous >> reply endpoints. >> >> Marc. >> >> On Dec 7, 2005, at 3:50 PM, Dan Diephouse wrote: >> >>> >>> Tests 1230 and 1231 appear to be the exact same. >>> >>> http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/addr/testsuite/testcases/#test1230 >>> http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/addr/testsuite/testcases/#test1231 >>> >>> For 1231 the text says "Two-way message exchange containing an >>> Action and a ReplyTo of anonymous. All other fields are >>> defaulted." - but in the linked to message there is no ReplyTo >>> defined. I'm assuming this is the critical difference between the >>> two tests cases and someone just left the ReplyTo out? >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> - Dan >>> >>> --Dan Diephouse >>> Envoi Solutions LLC >>> http://netzooid.com >>> >>> >> >> --- >> Marc Hadley <marc.hadley at sun.com> >> Business Alliances, CTO Office, Sun Microsystems. >> >> > > > -- > Dan Diephouse > Envoi Solutions LLC > http://netzooid.com > --- Marc Hadley <marc.hadley at sun.com> Business Alliances, CTO Office, Sun Microsystems.
Attachments
- application/pkcs7-signature attachment: smime.p7s
Received on Thursday, 8 December 2005 14:41:05 UTC