- From: <paul.downey@bt.com>
- Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2005 13:50:17 +0100
- 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 UTC