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

Tom,
  +1 on the ReplyTo.  On the FaultTo I'd prefer to tighten the "may" up a 
bit since it implies there's a choice of what to do which means the client 
doesn't know for sure what will happen.  I think it makes more sense for 
the spec to be explicit and choose what will happen, so if you remove the 
"may" then that would do it.  Of course, the other option of no 
wsa:FaultTo == anonymous would work too.  I'd be ok with either one as 
long as the spec is definitive about which rule to follow.
-Dug




Tom Rutt <tom@coastin.com> 
Sent by: public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org
03/01/2005 05:21 PM
Please respond to
tom


To
"public-ws-addressing@w3.org" <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>
cc

Subject
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