Re: Issue i044: Definition of the rules to reply to a message in Core 3.2

Hugo wrote on 02/07/2005 04:44:08 AM:
...
> Otherwise, if the reply is a fault message and the incoming message's
> [fault endpoint] message addressing property is not empty, select the
> EPR from this property. If the [fault endpoint] property is empty, the
> behavior of the recipient of the incoming message is undefined.

In particular, the "... is undefined." in the last sentence.
I read this to mean that as the sender of the incoming message I
can not make any assumption about where any possible Fault would go
if I did not include a wsa:FaultTo EPR in the incoming message.
Is this correct?  If so, does this not have the effect of making the 
wsa:FaultTo 
EPR required for all cases except in a one-way fire-n-forget scenario?
If so, that's ok (I guess :-), but I think it would be helpful to
encourage people (with a 'SHOULD' someplace) to include a wsa:FaultTo
so that they avoid 'undefined' behavior and risk interop issues.
-Dug