- From: David Hull <dmh@tibco.com>
- Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2005 11:32:24 -0400
- To: Marc Hadley <Marc.Hadley@Sun.COM>
- Cc: Mark Nottingham <mark.nottingham@bea.com>, public-ws-addressing@w3.org
Marc Hadley wrote: > 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. I'm would be happy with an explicit disclaimer. We have a couple already (e.g., about EPR comparison and lifecycle), which are entirely appropriate. > > Marc. > > --- > Marc Hadley <marc.hadley at sun.com> > Business Alliances, CTO Office, Sun Microsystems. > >
Received on Tuesday, 14 June 2005 15:32:32 UTC