RE: Proposal for lc75/lc88

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