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

Re: Proposal for lc75/lc88

From: David Hull <dmh@tibco.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2005 11:32:24 -0400
To: Marc Hadley <Marc.Hadley@Sun.COM>
Cc: Mark Nottingham <mark.nottingham@bea.com>, public-ws-addressing@w3.org
Message-id: <42AEF888.6010601@tibco.com>

Marc Hadley wrote:

> 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.

I'm would be happy with an explicit disclaimer.  We have a couple
already (e.g., about EPR comparison and lifecycle), which are entirely
appropriate.

>
> Marc.
>
> ---
> Marc Hadley <marc.hadley at sun.com>
> Business Alliances, CTO Office, Sun Microsystems.
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 14 June 2005 15:32:32 GMT

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