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

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

From: Savas Parastatidis <Savas.Parastatidis@newcastle.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2005 18:19:08 +0100
Message-ID: <37E80E80B681A24B8F768D607373CA80022BCE88@largo.campus.ncl.ac.uk>
To: "Rich Salz" <rsalz@datapower.com>, <tom@coastin.com>
Cc: <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>

<snip />

> 
> > If we did this change, the relibility specs might utilize ws
addressing
> > message Id when present in a message.
> 
> And they wouldn't if we didn't?  Why?

Further to Rich's question...

What if another spec has a similar but not identical requirement? Shall
the WS-Addressing spec be changed to accommodate that requirement?

Why couldn't the reliability spec say something like "we use the message
identity from WS-Addressing and we introduce this additional SOAP header
to capture the index"? Much cleaner approach me thinks.

Best regards,
.savas.
Received on Monday, 6 June 2005 17:19:21 GMT

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