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

RE: How does Message ID coordinate with existing message ID facilities?

From: Rogers, Tony <Tony.Rogers@ca.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2005 11:06:06 +1000
Message-ID: <7997F38251504E43B38435DAF917887F40C566@ausyms23.ca.com>
To: "David Hull" <dmh@tibco.com>, <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>
I agree with the last bullet, but I would not want to forbid re-use of an id generated for another purpose, assuming it met our message id requirements (correlation, "enough" uniqueness).
Tony Rogers

	-----Original Message----- 
	From: public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org on behalf of David Hull 
	Sent: Tue 14-Jun-05 5:53 
	To: public-ws-addressing@w3.org 
	Subject: How does Message ID coordinate with existing message ID facilities?
	Existing transport mechanisms often add some sort of visible message ID marker independent of the actual message payload.  There would appear to be several ways to relate such IDs to the WSA [message id] property.

	*	Abolish all other message IDs and make [message id] the one and only universally mandatory ID.  I mention this for completeness.  It's obviously a non-starter. 
	*	Require [message id], where present, to align with existing message IDs.  E.g., the [message id] of a message sent by email would be required to be the same as the message-id: email header (if present).  There are several technical problems with this, e.g., what to do when the same message takes multiple hops, what to do if multiple transport layers each assign an ID, what to do for transports which do not assign easily accessible IDs. 
	*	Allow the [message id] to default to a particular transport-level ID.  E.g., the [message id] property in an email binding would be defined as the server-assigned value of the message-id: header, unless [message id] was explicitly present.  This also presents problems in the face of multiple hops.
	*	Either of the previous two options could apply instead to IDs assigned by reliability mechanisms, assuming they are in use.
	*	Make [message id] completely independent of any other message ID mechanisms, as an end-to-end ID of the message, no matter how many hops it goes through. 

	As far as I can tell, the last option is the only viable one, and it may well be what everyone has in mind, but I would like to see some clarity on this.
Received on Tuesday, 14 June 2005 01:06:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:04:09 UTC