- From: Marc Hadley <Marc.Hadley@Sun.COM>
- Date: Wed, 02 Mar 2005 16:54:56 -0500
- To: Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
- Cc: Mark Peel <mpeel@novell.com>, public-ws-addressing@w3.org
On Mar 2, 2005, at 3:26 PM, 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. > No, we discussed this before[1]. >> 2. when wsa:ReplyTo is present the information is conveyed is: >> a) reply expected, and >> b) where to send the reply. >> > b) yes, but a) is incorrect. You have to include [reply endpoint] if > you expect a reply, but just because you include it doesn't mean you > expect a reply. I.e. its OK to include it in a message that doesn't > expect a reply. E.g. [reply endpoint] is optional in the one-way MEP. There's no difference in the information content. Marc. [1] http://www.w3.org/mid/2EEBCE5C-633C-11D9-99AE-000A95BC8D92@Sun.COM >> -----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/. >> >> > > > --- Marc Hadley <marc.hadley at sun.com> Web Technologies and Standards, Sun Microsystems.
Received on Wednesday, 2 March 2005 21:54:56 UTC