- From: David Hull <dmh@tibco.com>
- Date: Thu, 05 May 2005 15:35:09 -0400
- To: public-ws-addressing-comments@w3.org
Section 3 of the core states, in the description of the [message id] property that the [message id] is "An absolute IRI that uniquely identifies this message in time and space. No two messages with a distinct application intent may share a [message id] property." This is neither enforceable nor necessary. The only functional requirement for message IDs is that they be sufficient to correlate messages. Exactly what further requirements this imposes depend on the deployment. In particular, if the reply endpoint is anonymous and the binding is SOAP/HTTP, there is no need for a message ID at all. If there is no specific reason for this restriction, other than it being a good idea in many circumstances, then the requirement should be removed or at least softened to something like "Messages with distinct application intent SHOULD NOT have identical [message id] properties." If there is a compelling reason for this restriction, then it should be strengthened to RFC 2119, as for example "Messages with distinct application intent MUST NOT have identical [message id] properties.", and the reason should be made clear.
Received on Thursday, 5 May 2005 19:35:18 UTC