Proposed resolution for Issue 50 (Misallignment of faut to and reply to )

As currently specified, an EPR is allowed to have th value “anonymous” 
for the wsa:ReplyTo element. In this case, the reply goes back to the 
sender over the HTTP response, just as if not using addressing.

I would like to have an optimization (just as we did for wsa:To) that 
absence of wsa:ReplyTo is semantically equivalent to using the 
“anonymous” value.

Also: we almost agreed to have missing FaultTo implying use of ReplyTo 
when a fault is to be sent.

Proposal to resolve Issue 50:

First cut at text to add to the spec in definition of wsa:ReplyTo:
“
In the case of a message for which a reply is expected, the implied 
semantics of wsa:ReplyTo not present are equivalent to it being present 
with the anonymous URI.
“

In the definition for wsa:FaultTo, add the statement:
“
If wsa:FaultTo is absent, a Fault may be sent to the value (explicit or 
through the implicit indication of “anonymous”) for wsa:ReplyTo..



-- 
----------------------------------------------------
Tom Rutt	email: tom@coastin.com; trutt@us.fujitsu.com
Tel: +1 732 801 5744          Fax: +1 732 774 5133

Received on Tuesday, 1 March 2005 22:22:44 UTC