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

RE: Additional assertions for 1150 and 1250

From: David Illsley <david.illsley@uk.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2006 10:19:27 +0000
To: <paul.downey@bt.com>
Cc: public-ws-addressing-tests@w3.org, public-ws-addressing-tests-request@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF51A6AFC9.1D0E9A1C-ON80257129.00361561-80257129.0038AFA8@uk.ibm.com>

This really is an edge case... and in my view isn't earth shatteringly 
important so lets take an art of the possible approach...

I'm happy to go with 2 unless someone has a different, /practical/ 


David Illsley
Web Services Development
MP127, IBM Hursley Park, SO21 2JN
+44 (0)1962 815049 (Int. 245049)

Sent by: public-ws-addressing-tests-request@w3.org
05/03/2006 21:01

David Illsley/UK/IBM@IBMGB
RE: Additional assertions for 1150 and 1250

> assign [message id] with the 'first' one and then fault on (processing) 
> the second one. 

which given SOAP headers are a bag, is basically tossing a coin.

> The second MUST there does suggest to me that we should have an 
> to check that there is a RelatesTo with RelationshipType=reply in the 
> response, and I think that the contents could be any of the input 
> ids or the unspecified message uri.

sounds like we have to do more work for this edge case.

Maybe we could either:

1) remove this test case
2) make it informational with no assertion for the MUST
3) add assertions to check it's a MessageId that came in the message 
4) shove it back to the WG with a "must try harder" comment (big-sigh)

I vote for (2) as (3) and (4) are a slippery slope

Received on Monday, 6 March 2006 10:19:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:29:02 UTC