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

RE: Proposal for lc75/lc88

From: Yalcinalp, Umit <umit.yalcinalp@sap.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2005 19:23:00 +0200
Message-ID: <2BA6015847F82645A9BB31C7F9D64165106644@uspale20.pal.sap.corp>
To: "Jonathan Marsh" <jmarsh@microsoft.com>, "David Hull" <dmh@tibco.com>, "Marc Hadley" <Marc.Hadley@Sun.COM>
Cc: "Mark Nottingham" <mark.nottingham@bea.com>, <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>

+1, too.  

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of 
> Jonathan Marsh
> Sent: Tuesday, Jun 14, 2005 10:21 AM
> To: David Hull; Marc Hadley
> Cc: Mark Nottingham; public-ws-addressing@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Proposal for lc75/lc88
> 
> 
> +1 to an explicit disclaimer such as:
> 
> "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. The behavior of a receiver when
> receiving a message that contains the same [message id] as a 
> previously
> received message is undefined. 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 number satisfies the uniqueness criteria but 
> may not be
> the best practice from a security perspective."
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org [mailto:public-ws-
> > addressing-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of David Hull
> > Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2005 8:32 AM
> > To: Marc Hadley
> > Cc: Mark Nottingham; public-ws-addressing@w3.org
> > Subject: Re: Proposal for lc75/lc88
> > 
> > 
> > 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 17:23:32 GMT

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