Title: Message
Doug:
>
w.r.t. your intermediary examining the wsa:ReplyTo - be a bit careful
here.
> The presence of a wsa:ReplyTo
does not imply anything about the MEP (sadly :-(.
> There
are cases where a wsa:ReplyTo could be present even for a
one-way
> message. And the presence
of an anonymous wsa:ReplyTo does not guarantee
> that
anything will flow back on the http response
flow.
Let me try to
clarify myself. What's important here is not the fact I
examine wsa:ReplyTo to figure out what MEP this is. Let's say
there is an intermediary that is aware that the MEP is one way (perhaps through
the WSDL, etc). And this intermediary is not WS-RX aware. So it
decides to send back a 202 and close the http connection before forwarding on
the message. This will cause the WS-RX protocol to fail since
no synchronous ack can be sent back. Thus, the introduction of
an anonymous AcksTo is now a backwards-incompatible change. In order for
things to work, all intermediaries will need to be WS-RX aware and keep
connections open in case synchronous acks need to be sent
back.
Lei
