Re: [ws-tx] Issue 30 - One-way message replies

[Mark Little <mark.little@jboss.com>]

Line 472 and 480.

Mark.


Ram Jeyaraman wrote:
>
> Mark,
>
>  
>
> Could you please provide the PDF line numbers in the referred document 
> that are relevant to this issue. Thanks.
>
>  
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *From:* Ram Jeyaraman [mailto:Ram.Jeyaraman@microsoft.com]
> *Sent:* Friday, March 17, 2006 2:48 PM
> *To:* ws-tx@lists.oasis-open.org
> *Subject:* [ws-tx] Issue 30 - One-way message replies
>
>  
>
> This is identified as WS-TX issue 30.
>
>  
>
> Please ensure follow-ups have a subject line starting "Issue 30 -" 
> (after any Re:, [ws-tx] etc.)
>
>  
>
> ===================================
>
>  
>
> Issue name: One-way message replies
>
>  
>
> Issue type: spec
>
>  
>
> Owner: Mark Little (mark.little@jboss.com)
>
> Reference documents:
>
> WS-AT specification:
> http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ws-tx/download.php/17044/http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ws-tx/download.php/17129/wstx-wsat-1.1-spec-wd-04.pdf 
> <http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ws-tx/download.php/17044/http:/www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ws-tx/download.php/17129/wstx-wsat-1.1-spec-wd-04.pdf>
>
> Description:
>
> Currently we use wsa:ReplyTo for one-way messages in a way which 
> although legal in terms of the latest CR draft of WS-Addressing, has 
> led to confusion on a number of occasions. As an example, one use of 
> wsa:ReplyTo is on Prepare->Prepared, where Prepare has a wsa:ReplyTo 
> but the Prepared message is a separate (not response) message, because 
> it could be sent autonomously and not actually in response to Prepare. 
> The issue is that as far as WS-Addressing is concerned, wsa:ReplyTo 
> should really only be used in the case of the request-response MEP, 
> which is clearly not the case here.
>
> Proposed Resolution:
>
> The rules for where and when wsa:ReplyTo should be included and used 
> within WS-AT are well defined, and particularly in respect to the 
> interoperability scenarios. I propose that we replace wsa:ReplyTo with 
> something specific to WS-TX (perhaps wsc:ReplyTo, wsc:OnewayTo, or 
> somesuch).
>
> Addendum:
>
> Max suggested at the Raleigh f2f another potential resolution: that we 
> use wsa:From.
>