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

RE: Proposal for lc75/lc88

From: <paul.downey@bt.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2005 13:50:17 +0100
Message-ID: <2B7789AAED12954AAD214AEAC13ACCEF2709E40B@i2km02-ukbr.domain1.systemhost.net>
To: <Marc.Hadley@Sun.COM>, <mark.nottingham@bea.com>
Cc: <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>

Marc wrote:

> 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.

+1 defining the behaviour in terms of how a receiver treats a duplicate
messageId seems more useful than trying to constrain what a sender,
intermediaries, or the message path may do. I tried to make this exact
point verbally at the F2F.

For WS-Addressing, my preference is to allow a receiver to ignore 
duplicate messages (i) or explcitly state the behaviour is undefined (v).

Paul
Received on Wednesday, 15 June 2005 12:50:26 GMT

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