- From: Tom Rutt <tom@coastin.com>
- Date: Mon, 06 Jun 2005 14:04:40 +0200
- To: Robert Freund <bob.freund@hitachisoftware.com>
- CC: public-ws-addressing@w3.org
Robert Freund wrote: > Note that I have not attempted to address the comments on this list > concerning time stamp or other complex type proposals since they are > beyond the scope of the lc comments. > > -bob > while I agree time stamps are beyond the scope of uniqueness issue, adding an integer index does, in my opinion, deal with the uniqueness issue directly. It simplifies the provision of a globally unique id for each message without requiring a separate globally unique URI to be cast for each message. Tom Rutt > > > The value of [message id] uniquely identifies the message. > > When present, it is the responsibility of the sender to insure that > each message is uniquely identified. > > A receiver MUST treat all messages that contain the same [message id] > as the same message. > > If a reply is expected and a back-channel may not be available, > [message id] MUST be present. > > No specific algorithm for the generation of unique values of [message > id] is given, however methods such as the use of an IRI that exists > within a domain owned by the sender combined with a sequence satisfies > the uniqueness criteria but may not be the best practice from a > security perspective. > -- ---------------------------------------------------- Tom Rutt email: tom@coastin.com; trutt@us.fujitsu.com Tel: +1 732 801 5744 Fax: +1 732 774 5133
Received on Monday, 6 June 2005 12:06:20 UTC