RE: Why is [message id] required for requests but not for other messages?

If the draft minutes are accurate, some of us voted to make [message ID]
mandatory, others to make it optional at all times, but the bulk of the
WG voted to simply 86 issue lc86.  I don't know what more to
productively say on the topic at this point.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org [mailto:public-ws-
> addressing-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Tom Rutt
> Sent: Monday, June 13, 2005 4:21 PM
> To: Yalcinalp, Umit
> Cc: David Hull; public-ws-addressing@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Why is [message id] required for requests but not for
> other messages?
> 
> 
> check my concern below umit's comment
> 
> Yalcinalp, Umit wrote:
> 
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >>-----Original Message-----
> >>From: public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org
> >>[mailto:public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of David Hull
> >>Sent: Monday, Jun 13, 2005 3:07 PM
> >>To: public-ws-addressing@w3.org
> >>Subject: Why is [message id] required for requests but not
> >>for other messages?
> >>
> >>
> >>If [message id] is to be leveraged for uses other than correlation,
> >>particularly duplicate elimination and security, wouldn't those
> >>considerations apply at least equally well to non request/reply
> >>interactions?  If not, what is the basis for requiring
> >>[message id] for
> >>requests but not for other types of message?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Well, if you recall from the f2f, we wanted to require message id
> across
> >the board :-)
> >
> >
> >
> but those semantics are not there in the present document, MesssageId
> is
> only required when correlation of a reply is required.
> 
> Tom Rutt
> 
> >--umit
> >
> >
> >
> 
> --
> ----------------------------------------------------
> Tom Rutt	email: tom@coastin.com; trutt@us.fujitsu.com
> Tel: +1 732 801 5744          Fax: +1 732 774 5133
> 
>

Received on Tuesday, 14 June 2005 17:40:45 UTC