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

Re: Why is [message id] required for requests but not for other messages?

From: Mark Little <mark.little@arjuna.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 14:13:30 +0100
Message-ID: <42B17AFA.3060608@arjuna.com>
To: "Conor P. Cahill" <concahill@aol.com>
CC: David Hull <dmh@tibco.com>, "Yalcinalp, Umit" <umit.yalcinalp@sap.com>, Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>, tom@coastin.com, public-ws-addressing@w3.org



Conor P. Cahill wrote:

>Mark Little wrote on 6/16/2005, 8:50 AM:
>
> >
> > I think if we're going to get into the notion of sessions and
> > correlation ids, that we should step back a moment. The WS-Context
> > specification (http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ws-caf/) has
> > been developed to cover that area and it would be best not to reinvent
> > the wheel here. If you're not considering multi-message exchange
> > correlations, then I'd suggest we stick with MessageId.
>
>I said *NOTHING* about sessions.  However I did bring up correlation
>because that is *EXACTLY* what WS-A is using the element currently
>named "MessageID" for.    It is not using MessageID for identifying all
>messages (it only identifies messages that require a response) nor for
>replay attacks (it's missing some additional parameters that would
>make this reasonably doable), nor for reliable messaging processing
>(again, missing some additional parameters).
>
>IMHO, Much of the confusion/discussion on this list over the past
>few months on this subject have all been because people are
>misinterpreting the purpose of this element because of the name
>of the element.
>  
>
I didn't mean to imply you'd said sessions explicitly and thought the 
rest of my message made that clear. It's just that the term correlation 
id is often used when talking about sessions. If you're just talking 
about simply tying together a request and a response (with subsequent 
requests having different "ids") then I reiterate that I don't have a 
problem with MessageID, or (going back to the mid 80's when RPCs were 
the king) SequenceNumber. I think shifting to CorrelationID runs the 
risk of increasing the confusion you mention.

Mark.

>Conor
>
>
>  
>
Received on Thursday, 16 June 2005 13:13:12 GMT

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