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

RE: [lc35] Duplicate headers at the ultimate receiver (SOAP, substantive)

From: Rogers, Tony <Tony.Rogers@ca.com>
Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2005 07:55:08 +1000
Message-ID: <7997F38251504E43B38435DAF917887F40C4A8@ausyms23.ca.com>
To: "Jonathan Marsh" <jmarsh@microsoft.com>, <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>
This wording can be read to suggest that you can only have one of the five headers, which is not the intent. Perhaps it might be better phrased as:
 

		Each of the headers wsa:To, wsa:ReplyTo, wsa:FaultTo, wsa:Action, and wsa:MessageID is subject to the restriction that, when targetted to the ultimate receiver, it MUST NOT occur more than once in a message. If any of these occurs more than once, the recipient MUST generate a wsa:DuplicateMessageAddressingHeader fault.

 
How's that?
 
Tony Rogers

	-----Original Message----- 
	From: public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org on behalf of Jonathan Marsh 
	Sent: Sat 30-Apr-05 7:14 
	To: public-ws-addressing@w3.org 
	Cc: 
	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 21:55:15 GMT

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