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

Re: [lc34] Duplicate headers at the ultimate receiver (SOAP, substantive)

From: Marc Hadley <Marc.Hadley@Sun.COM>
Date: Thu, 05 May 2005 13:45:39 -0400
To: Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
Cc: public-ws-addressing@w3.org
Message-id: <ac5d0b7ae0f3905c93a843d5f2cdcec4@Sun.COM>

On Apr 29, 2005, at 5:31 PM, Jonathan Marsh wrote:
>
> Oops, this should have been lc34.  Changed the title.
>
>>
>> Per my AI, here is an alternate proposal for duplicate header faults.
>>
>> Add in Section 3.3 (SOAP Binding) just before the intro to the
>> example:
>>   'A message MUST not contain more than one wsa:To, wsa:ReplyTo,
>>   wsa:FaultTo, wsa:Action, or wsa:MessageID header targeted to the
>>   ultimate receiver.  A recipient MUST generate a
>>   wsa:DuplicateMessageAddressingHeader fault in this case.'
>>
As discussed on this weeks call I think we should remove 'ultimate' in 
the above. There's nothing particularly special about intermediaries 
from a SOAP header processing model point of view so the above rule 
should apply equally to the ultimate receiver and any intermediaries in 
the SOAP message path.

Marc.

>> Add a new Section 5.3
>>
>>   "Section 5.3 Duplicate Addressing Header
>>   "More than one header representing a message addressing property
>>   targeted to the ultimate destination, is present.
>>   [Code] S:Sender
>>   [Subcode] wsa:DuplicateMessageAddressingHeader
>>   [Reason] A header which can only occur once targeted to a the
>> ultimate
>>            destination representing a message addressing property is
>>            present more than once.
>>   [Detail] [Duplicate header QName]
>>
>> FWIW, I don't think this case warrants the definition of a new type of
>> fault (where will that end?), and prefer my original proposal.
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: public-ws-addressing-comments-request@w3.org
>> [mailto:public-ws-addressing-comments-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of
>> Jonathan Marsh
>> Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2005 2:21 PM
>> To: public-ws-addressing-comments@w3.org
>> Subject: Duplicate headers at the ultimate receiver (SOAP,
>> substantive)
>>
>>
>> We have agreed that it is acceptable for a message to contain
>> duplicate
>> WSA headers, as long as they are targeted differently.  To improve
>> interoperability, we should clarify what happens when duplicate
>> headers
>> targeted to the ultimate recipient are inserted in a message:
>>
>>   'A message MUST not contain more than one wsa:To, wsa:ReplyTo,
>>   wsa:FaultTo, wsa:Action, or wsa:MessageID header targeted to the
>>   ultimate receiver.  A recipient MUST generate a
>>   wsa:InvalidMessageAddressingProperty fault in this case.'
>>
>>
>
>
>
---
Marc Hadley <marc.hadley at sun.com>
Business Alliances, CTO Office, Sun Microsystems.
Received on Thursday, 5 May 2005 17:45:54 GMT

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