Re: [wsrm] Action item for ReplyTo definition

["Jun Tatemura" <tatemura@ccrl.sj.nec.com>]

We can say that ABP must be specified even if ack is not requested (because fault has to be received).
If and only if ABP = Callback, we need ReplyTo (that's what Sunil pointed out, isn't it?)

Junichi Tatemura

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jun Tatemura" <tatemura@ccrl.sj.nec.com>
To: <tom@coastin.com>; "Patrick Yee" <kcyee@cecid.hku.hk>
Cc: "wsrm" <wsrm@lists.oasis-open.org>
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2003 11:06 AM
Subject: Re: [wsrm] Action item for ReplyTo definition


> 
> I think we need to discuss how Fault should be sent back (Fault Binding Patterns (FBPs)?) before
> designing ReplyTo details.
> We have defined Ack Binding Patterns (ABP) (Response,Callback,Polling).
> If ack is requested, we can assume ABP = FBP.
> So, what if ack is not requested? Should we specify FBP (Response, Callback, Polling)?
> What about relationship between bindings of application fault messages (MEP?) and
> ws-rm fault messages (FBP)?
> 
> Junichi Tatemura