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

Re: Proposal for lc75/lc88

From: Marc Hadley <Marc.Hadley@Sun.COM>
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2005 08:15:47 -0400
To: Mark Nottingham <mark.nottingham@bea.com>
Cc: public-ws-addressing@w3.org
Message-id: <014799BD-F54B-4CAB-A58E-3DB0EF9B0937@Sun.COM>
On Jun 13, 2005, at 5:56 PM, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>
> 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. 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.
>
As discussed on yesterdays telcon, the problem I have with the above  
language is that its not clear what behavior we are allowing when we  
say: "a receiver MAY treat all messages that contain the same  
[message id] as the same message". Is my receiver compliant with WS- 
Addr if it:

(i) silently ignores a second message with the same [message id] as a  
previously received one
(ii) generates a fault when it receives a second message with the  
same [message id] as a previously received one
(iii) processes a second message with the same [message id] as a  
previously received one
(iv) all of the above or some other combination

I would prefer that we spell out the allowed behavior or, if we don't  
constrain it any way, be explicit that the behavior is undefined.

Marc.

---
Marc Hadley <marc.hadley at sun.com>
Business Alliances, CTO Office, Sun Microsystems.




Received on Tuesday, 14 June 2005 12:15:52 GMT

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