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

Tom Rutt wrote:
> I also remember a lot of use cases where replyTo is there to be used by 
> a future callback.  In this case the replyTo would be present, but there 

> is no reason to have the intermediary keep the connection open.
> 
> Earlier mail discussions led to the realization that The scope of use of 

> ReplyTo may be subject to contracts outside of ws-addressing.

yup that was the way the conversation went and seemed odd to me that
the WS-Addr spec wouldn't want control over one of its own headers.
If some other (or layered on) spec wanted some "future callback"
EPR then it should define its own header for that purpose.  Overloading
ReplyTo, IMO, just adds confusion.  But I'm getting a sense of deja vu. 
:-)

-Dug

> Doug Davis wrote:
> 
> >
> > Jonathan,
> >   Does:
> >   an indication in the message whether a reply is expected
> > imply that presence of a wsa:ReplyTo means its a two-way message?
> > I thought that kind of assumption was something the WG was trying to 
> > avoid. [1]
> > thanks
> > -Dug
> >
> > [1] 
> > 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2004Nov/0305.html 

> >
> >
> >
> >
> > *"Jonathan Marsh" <jmarsh@microsoft.com>*
> > Sent by: public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org
> >
> > 03/02/2005 03:26 PM
> >
> > 
> > To
> >    "Mark Peel" <mpeel@novell.com>, <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>
> > cc
> > 
> > Subject
> >    RE: Proposed resolution for Issue 50 (Misallignment of faut to  
> >   and  reply  to )
> >
> >
> >
> > 
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 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/.
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> 
> -- 
> ----------------------------------------------------
> Tom Rutt   email: tom@coastin.com; trutt@us.fujitsu.com
> Tel: +1 732 801 5744          Fax: +1 732 774 5133
> 
> 
>