RE: Additional assertions for 1150 and 1250

*sigh*

This really is an edge case... and in my view isn't earth shatteringly 
important so lets take an art of the possible approach...

I'm happy to go with 2 unless someone has a different, /practical/ 
suggestion.

David

David Illsley
Web Services Development
MP127, IBM Hursley Park, SO21 2JN
+44 (0)1962 815049 (Int. 245049)
david.illsley@uk.ibm.com



<paul.downey@bt.com> 
Sent by: public-ws-addressing-tests-request@w3.org
05/03/2006 21:01

To
David Illsley/UK/IBM@IBMGB
cc
<public-ws-addressing-tests@w3.org>, 
<public-ws-addressing-tests-request@w3.org>
Subject
RE: Additional assertions for 1150 and 1250








> 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