W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-addressing@w3.org > April 2005

RE: [lc34] Duplicate headers at the ultimate receiver (SOAP, substantive)

From: Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2005 14:31:58 -0700
Message-ID: <7DA77BF2392448449D094BCEF67569A507609A91@RED-MSG-30.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>

Oops, this should have been lc34.  Changed the title.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org [mailto:public-ws-
> addressing-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Jonathan Marsh
> Sent: Friday, April 29, 2005 2:14 PM
> To: public-ws-addressing@w3.org
> Subject: [lc35] Duplicate headers at the ultimate receiver (SOAP,
> substantive)
> 
> 
> Per my AI, here is an alternate proposal for duplicate header faults.
> 
> Add in Section 3.3 (SOAP Binding) just before the intro to the
> example:
>   'A message MUST not contain more than one wsa:To, wsa:ReplyTo,
>   wsa:FaultTo, wsa:Action, or wsa:MessageID header targeted to the
>   ultimate receiver.  A recipient MUST generate a
>   wsa:DuplicateMessageAddressingHeader fault in this case.'
> 
> Add a new Section 5.3
> 
>   "Section 5.3 Duplicate Addressing Header
>   "More than one header representing a message addressing property
>   targeted to the ultimate destination, is present.
>   [Code] S:Sender
>   [Subcode] wsa:DuplicateMessageAddressingHeader
>   [Reason] A header which can only occur once targeted to a the
> ultimate
>            destination representing a message addressing property is
>            present more than once.
>   [Detail] [Duplicate header QName]
> 
> FWIW, I don't think this case warrants the definition of a new type of
> fault (where will that end?), and prefer my original proposal.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-ws-addressing-comments-request@w3.org
> [mailto:public-ws-addressing-comments-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of
> Jonathan Marsh
> Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2005 2:21 PM
> To: public-ws-addressing-comments@w3.org
> Subject: Duplicate headers at the ultimate receiver (SOAP,
> substantive)
> 
> 
> We have agreed that it is acceptable for a message to contain
> duplicate
> WSA headers, as long as they are targeted differently.  To improve
> interoperability, we should clarify what happens when duplicate
> headers
> targeted to the ultimate recipient are inserted in a message:
> 
>   'A message MUST not contain more than one wsa:To, wsa:ReplyTo,
>   wsa:FaultTo, wsa:Action, or wsa:MessageID header targeted to the
>   ultimate receiver.  A recipient MUST generate a
>   wsa:InvalidMessageAddressingProperty fault in this case.'
> 
> 
Received on Friday, 29 April 2005 21:32:17 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:35:05 GMT