- From: <paul.downey@bt.com>
- Date: Sun, 5 Mar 2006 21:01:29 -0000
- To: <david.illsley@uk.ibm.com>
- Cc: <public-ws-addressing-tests@w3.org>, <public-ws-addressing-tests-request@w3.org>
> assign [message id] with the 'first' one and then fault on (processing) > the second one. which given SOAP headers are a bag, is basically tossing a coin. > The second MUST there does suggest to me that we should have an assertion > to check that there is a RelatesTo with RelationshipType=reply in the > response, and I think that the contents could be any of the input message > ids or the unspecified message uri. sounds like we have to do more work for this edge case. Maybe we could either: 1) remove this test case 2) make it informational with no assertion for the MUST 3) add assertions to check it's a MessageId that came in the message (sigh) 4) shove it back to the WG with a "must try harder" comment (big-sigh) I vote for (2) as (3) and (4) are a slippery slope Paul
Received on Sunday, 5 March 2006 21:01:39 UTC