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

Re: Another go at lc75 and lc88 language (correction)

From: Tom Rutt <tom@coastin.com>
Date: Mon, 06 Jun 2005 18:46:59 +0200
Message-ID: <42A47E03.2000103@coastin.com>
To: Robert Freund <bob.freund@hitachisoftware.com>
CC: public-ws-addressing@w3.org

I strongly feel that the scope of uniqueness for messsageIds is 
simplified by adding an optional integer Index. Other specs may give
semantics to the globalID portion and the integer index.

I propose an amendment to Bob’s proposal (to add the index concept) as 
follows:

In 3.1 change:

[message id] : IRI (0..1)

An absolute IRI that uniquely identifies this message in time and space. 
No two messages with a distinct application intent may share a [message 
id] property. A message MAY be retransmitted for any reason including 
communications failure and MAY use the same [message id] property. The 
value of this property is an IRI whose interpretation beyond equivalence 
is not defined in this specification.

To:

“

[message id] : {IRI (0..1), UnsignedLong (0..1)}

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 MAY 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.

A [message id] value comprises a globalID part, and an optional index, 
which together uniquely identify the message.”

No specific algorithm for the generation of unique values for the 
globalId part and optional index of a [message id] is given.

Note: Methods outside the scope of this specification may be defined, 
such as:

    * the use of an IRI generated within a domain owned by the sender
      each time the endpoint is initialized, along with an integer
      derived from the system clock at the time the message is sent
    * the use of an IRI to identify a sequence of messages within a
      domain owned by the sender combined with an integer sequence number.

“

Tom Rutt



Robert Freund wrote:

> Change of one MUST to MAY
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *From:* public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org] *On Behalf Of *Robert Freund
> *Sent:* Sunday, June 05, 2005 10:59 PM
> *To:* public-ws-addressing@w3.org
> *Subject:* Another go at lc75 and lc88 language
>
> 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
>
> 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 MAY 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 16:48:40 GMT

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