W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-addressing@w3.org > February 2006

RE: Clarification on MessageId

From: Rogers, Tony <Tony.Rogers@ca.com>
Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2006 17:26:11 +1100
Message-ID: <BEE2BD647C052D4FA59B42F5E2D946B304DE81@AUSYMS12.ca.com>
To: <chinthaka@wso2.com>, "[WS-A]" <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>
"UUID" means Universally Unique ID - it's basically a GUID without an MS trademark :-)  It would normally be a 128 bit number, usually presented as a hex string of 32 digits in the format 12345678-1234-1234-1234-1234567890ab - is that the kind of number you are seeing? If so, then it suggests that they are using the UUID method to generate numbers that are likely to be unique (for fairly large values of "likely"). This is not a bad idea, but I didn't think it was mandated.
 
I would have thought that one might use EITHER uuid: OR urn: as a prefix to the message id - using both seems a little excessive. 
 
Perhaps one of our MS representatives might care to comment?

________________________________

From: public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org on behalf of Eran Chinthaka
Sent: Tue 07-Feb-06 15:31
To: [WS-A]
Subject: Clarification on MessageId




-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Hi,

I've started to complete WS-A implementation we have with Axis2. When
I went through our issue tracking system, I saw a little confusing
issue being filled by a user who was trying to interoperate .net with
Axis2.

He has complained saying .net expects message id of the pattern
"uuid:urn:<aUniqueNumber>". But the spec says it can be any IRI. But
for me it seems that .net has mandated to prefix the uuid with
"uuid:urn".

I checked with WS-A CR here :
http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/CR-ws-addr-core-20050817/ (BTW, this is the
latest, right ? ). In the first example, the message id was like
http://example.com/6B29FC40-CA47-1067-B31D-00DD010662DA.

So as far as the interop is concerned what do you think about this ?
Shall we adhere to the practice of putting "uuid:urn:<aUniqueNumber>"
as the message id, or will it be "any" IRI ?

( Please forgive me, if the one who has filled the bug has lied, as I
couldn't try this on my own :( )

Thanks,
Eran Chinthaka
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)

iD8DBQFD6CKEjON2uBzUhh8RAtmcAJ97gURq5xAu+09IC6Gehp/EdA/pTQCdHPAR
E7dyI6RMvVsoJhRhMuuZubs=
=XLQX
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Received on Tuesday, 7 February 2006 06:26:13 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:35:11 GMT