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

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

From: Yalcinalp, Umit <umit.yalcinalp@sap.com>
Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2005 12:49:56 +0200
Message-ID: <2BA6015847F82645A9BB31C7F9D64165105F28@uspale20.pal.sap.corp>
To: "Robert Freund" <bob.freund@hitachisoftware.com>, <paul.downey@bt.com>, <tom@coastin.com>, <mark.little@arjuna.com>
Cc: <rsalz@datapower.com>, <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of 
> Robert Freund
> Sent: Wednesday, Jun 08, 2005 12:12 PM
> To: paul.downey@bt.com; tom@coastin.com; mark.little@arjuna.com
> Cc: rsalz@datapower.com; public-ws-addressing@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Another go at lc75 and lc88 language (correction)
> 
> 
> If we specify that the message id must be unique, but do not 
> specify the
> algorithm, does that not permit other protocols to define a specific
> algorithm more to their liking as long as the result remains an IRI?
> Would that not supply adequate flexibility?

IMO, it does. Others can build their own IRI encoding scheme as needed
as well. 

> -bob

--umit


> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org
> [mailto:public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of 
> paul.downey@bt.com
> Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2005 9:12 AM
> To: tom@coastin.com; mark.little@arjuna.com
> Cc: rsalz@datapower.com; public-ws-addressing@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Another go at lc75 and lc88 language (correction)
> 
> 
> Tom
> 
> > I guess what I am seeing in this discussion is that the 
> requirements for 
> > wsa:messageId are not clear.
> 
> I don't see that at all. I see we have messageId for correlation, 
> though I heard during the discussion in Berlin several potential
> use-cases enabled by having a mandatory messageId. These included,
> but were by no means limited to, transport independent message
> correlation, logging and auditing by a transparent proxy observing
> messages being exchanged, and elimination of duplicate messages.
> 
> > If it is intended to be a general purpose message id for use in wsa 
> > message correlation as well as for other uses, then
> > we might want to include the uid,integer pair.
> 
> I don't see how that follows at all. The introduction of integers 
> implies to me you are thinking about some kind of windowing protocol 
> where messages may be collated, missing messages may be identified 
> and requested to be retransmitted within a range of messages. Possibly
> even that the sequence number will roll-over and be reused.
> 
> That goes way, way beyond addressing, and isn't something we should
> be following at all. From a procedural POV, i'm puzzled as to
> what LC issue introducing such complexity and restriction
> on the format of messageId would resolve.
> 
> > However, if it is just for use in ws addressing correlation, then 
> > a URI would suffice, with no semantics on its contents.
> 
> I'm OK with a URI, but don't follow the reasoning.
> 
> > With a clarification on such a restricted use, it should only be 
> > required when the reply to is present with a non anonymous value.
> 
> No. I disagree. That's making matters more complex and dependent
> upon the binding for a single hop, rendering messagId less useful in 
> end to end message passing scenarios where the message passes over
> HTTP and then another transport such as Email/MQ.
> 
> > Other ws specs which need further semantics would be 
> required to define 
> > their own identity elements.  
> 
> Possibly, possibly not. It seems to me that making messageId 
> mandatory and unique will make it more attractive for other
> specs to layer upon it for identifying a unique message. 
> 
> > This has the advantage of allowing their 
> > use when ws addressing is not being used.
> 
> That's their business.
> 
> Paul
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
Received on Wednesday, 8 June 2005 10:50:37 GMT

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