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

Tom wrote on 02/14/2005 02:22:55 PM:

> Does "a reply" mean an "application level response to the message sent 
> using ws-addressing"?
> This is important, since some other soap header based
> protocols can have their own orthogonal soap header reply mechanisms 
> (e.g., for the
> ws-Reliability callback reply pattern, a protocol reply soap header is 
> sent to a callback address contained  in a ws-Reliability specified soap 

> header element sent with the request message ).
> I would like to be sure that such a case is not considered a "reply 
> using ws-addressing".

I think the message you're referring to would be a new message
and not considered a reply in the WSA sense. But I suspect you'd still 
it to include the WS-A headers (msgId, To....) even if it doesn't 
include the wsa:RelatesTo, right?

Likewise, I think clients who leave off a wsa:FaultTo would still
want the Fault to include the WSA headers.  Based on the current wording
(and a bit of guessing) I'm assuming the Fault might or might not
have them.  Thus, as I've said before - IMO, having the implicit effect of
making wsa:FaultTo a required header.


Received on Monday, 14 February 2005 20:49:40 UTC