Re: Additional assertions for 1150 and 1250

2 gets my vote.

Mark.


David Illsley wrote:
>
> *sigh*
>
> 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/ 
> suggestion.
>
> David
>
> David Illsley
> Web Services Development
> MP127, IBM Hursley Park, SO21 2JN
> +44 (0)1962 815049 (Int. 245049)
> david.illsley@uk.ibm.com
>
>
> *<paul.downey@bt.com>*
> Sent by: public-ws-addressing-tests-request@w3.org
>
> 05/03/2006 21:01
>
> 	
> To
> 	David Illsley/UK/IBM@IBMGB
> cc
> 	<public-ws-addressing-tests@w3.org>, 
> <public-ws-addressing-tests-request@w3.org>
> Subject
> 	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 
> assertion
> > 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 
> message
> > 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 
> (sigh)
> 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
>
> Paul
>
>

Received on Monday, 6 March 2006 12:29:58 UTC