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

Re: Another go at lc75 and lc88 language

From: Tom Rutt <tom@coastin.com>
Date: Mon, 06 Jun 2005 14:04:40 +0200
Message-ID: <42A43BD8.3060102@coastin.com>
To: Robert Freund <bob.freund@hitachisoftware.com>
CC: public-ws-addressing@w3.org



Robert Freund wrote:

> Note that I have not attempted to address the comments on this list 
> concerning time stamp or other complex type proposals since they are 
> beyond the scope of the lc comments.
>
> -bob
>
while I agree time stamps are beyond the scope of uniqueness issue, 
adding an integer index does, in my opinion, deal with
the uniqueness issue directly.  It simplifies the provision of a 
globally unique id for each message without requiring a separate
globally unique URI to be cast for each message.

Tom Rutt

>  
>
> The value of [message id] uniquely identifies the message.
>
> When present, it is the responsibility of the sender to insure that 
> each message is uniquely identified.
>
> A receiver MUST treat all messages that contain the same [message id] 
> as the same message.
>
> If a reply is expected and a back-channel may not be available, 
> [message id] MUST be present.
>
> No specific algorithm for the generation of unique values of [message 
> id] is given, however methods such as the use of an IRI that exists 
> within a domain owned by the sender combined with a sequence satisfies 
> the uniqueness criteria but may not be the best practice from a 
> security perspective.
>

-- 
----------------------------------------------------
Tom Rutt	email: tom@coastin.com; trutt@us.fujitsu.com
Tel: +1 732 801 5744          Fax: +1 732 774 5133
Received on Monday, 6 June 2005 12:06:20 GMT

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