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

In that case -- and again I'll repeat that I see this all mainly as a 
question of how best to present the semantics -- I would prefer to see

    * default => binding-specified AND anonymous => binding-specified

or if that seems repititious, and/or we don't want to require that 
missing always means the same as anonymous

    * anonymous => default => binding-specified

What I /don't/ like is the notion that "the anonymous endpoint" is a 
semantically central concept.  It seems more like a specialized name for 
the semantically central concept of "default channel".

A separate question is wheteher we want to use a special "anonymous" URI 
or an empty value.  I'm largely apathetic on that one.

Jonathan Marsh wrote:

>I thought this was on the list somewhere but I couldn't find it, so I'll
>restate it here.  One benefit we would lose from making wsa:ReplyTo
>optional is an indication in the message whether a reply is expected.
>An intermediary or proxy might use this information to, for example,
>keep a connection open without having a description of the message's MEP
>available.  The information content of a specified wsa:ReplyTo and a
>default value is different.
>
>  
>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org [mailto:public-ws-
>>addressing-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Mark Peel
>>Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2005 12:08 PM
>>To: public-ws-addressing@w3.org
>>Subject: Re: Proposed resolution for Issue 50 (Misallignment of faut
>>to and reply to )
>>
>>
>>
>>+1 to Dave's approach.  But as for quoting Ockham's Razor as written,
>>I
>>feel we have enough cryptic language to deal with already...  Latinum
>>est; non potest legi.
>>
>>Cheers,
>>
>>Mark Peel
>>Web Services Infrastructure
>>Novell, Inc.
>>
>>
>>    
>>
>>>>>David Hull <dmh@tibco.com> 03/02/05 9:43 AM >>>
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>>I think we're on the same page semantically.  I believe the difference
>>
>>is between saying
>>
>>    * missing => anonymous => binding-specified
>>
>>and
>>
>>    * missing => binding specified
>>
>>For me the latter wins. /Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter
>>necessitatem/.
>>
>>
>>    
>>
>
>
>  
>