- From: Marc Hadley <Marc.Hadley@Sun.COM>
- Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2005 08:15:47 -0400
- To: Mark Nottingham <mark.nottingham@bea.com>
- Cc: public-ws-addressing@w3.org
- Message-id: <014799BD-F54B-4CAB-A58E-3DB0EF9B0937@Sun.COM>
On Jun 13, 2005, at 5:56 PM, Mark Nottingham wrote: > > 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 MAY treat all messages > that contain the same [message id] as the same message. 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. > As discussed on yesterdays telcon, the problem I have with the above language is that its not clear what behavior we are allowing when we say: "a receiver MAY treat all messages that contain the same [message id] as the same message". Is my receiver compliant with WS- Addr if it: (i) silently ignores a second message with the same [message id] as a previously received one (ii) generates a fault when it receives a second message with the same [message id] as a previously received one (iii) processes a second message with the same [message id] as a previously received one (iv) all of the above or some other combination I would prefer that we spell out the allowed behavior or, if we don't constrain it any way, be explicit that the behavior is undefined. Marc. --- Marc Hadley <marc.hadley at sun.com> Business Alliances, CTO Office, Sun Microsystems.
Attachments
- application/pkcs7-signature attachment: smime.p7s
Received on Tuesday, 14 June 2005 12:15:52 UTC