W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-addressing@w3.org > March 2005

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

From: Francisco Curbera <curbera@us.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2005 13:16:26 -0500
To: tom@coastin.com
Cc: "public-ws-addressing@w3.org" <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>, public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF30E20E85.C8748E57-ON85256FB9.0063B965-85256FB9.006461C3@us.ibm.com>

Omitting replyTo when a reply is expected and defaulting to anonymous seems
like a harmless  optimization. However, it changes the semantics of the
spec considerably by stating that for every message sent there is (by
default) a channel to send responses back. This is just not the case,
unless we start forcing all http senders to implicitly accept synchronous
replies or actively provide a new endpoint to accept the replies. Makes no
sense to me.

So I agree (that was my proposal at the f2f) tht we should clarify the text
by stating that faults should be sent to the replyTo endpoint if faultTo is
absent; but we should also leave the rest of the specification as it is

Going back to the core of issue 50, I have to repeat the claim I made at
the f2f that the asymmetry between replyTo and faultTo is just a reflection
of the asymmetry between normal reply messages and faults. You can
positively expect a reply to follow your request; if you positively expect
a fault to follow your request chances are that you will not send the
message. Faults and regular responses are never treated symmetrically.


                      Tom Rutt                                                                                                           
                      <tom@coastin.com>               To:       "public-ws-addressing@w3.org" <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>              
                      Sent by:                        cc:                                                                                
                      public-ws-addressing-req        Subject:  Proposed resolution for Issue 50 (Misallignment of faut to and reply  to 
                      uest@w3.org                      )                                                                                 
                      03/01/2005 05:21 PM                                                                                                
                      Please respond to tom                                                                                              

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 Thursday, 3 March 2005 18:34:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:28:24 UTC