- From: Mark Little <mark.little@arjuna.com>
- Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2005 12:11:12 +0100
- To: Prasad Yendluri <pyendluri@webmethods.com>
- CC: Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>, Marc Hadley <Marc.Hadley@Sun.COM>, Mark Nottingham <mark.nottingham@bea.com>, public-ws-addressing@w3.org
+1 Prasad Yendluri wrote: > +1 to leaving the behavior "undefined" for duplicate [message id]. > > How to handle messages with duplicate [message id] is very context > (application / other protocols involved) sensitive. For example in > reliable messaging (over unreliable transfer) reliability is typically > achieved by sending the *same* message again (and over) until an ack > message is received and hence a receiver should expect to receive > duplicate (or a message with the same [message id]) and be prepared to > eliminate duplicates without returning an error or faulting. Whereas > in other situations a duplicate message could in fact be treated as an > error. > > Regards, Prasad > > Jonathan Marsh wrote: > >>+1 to an explicit disclaimer such as: >> >>"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. The behavior of a receiver when >>receiving a message that contains the same [message id] as a previously >>received message is undefined. 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 number satisfies the uniqueness criteria but may not be >>the best practice from a security perspective." >> >> >> >>>-----Original Message----- >>>From: public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org [mailto:public-ws- >>>addressing-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of David Hull >>>Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2005 8:32 AM >>>To: Marc Hadley >>>Cc: Mark Nottingham; public-ws-addressing@w3.org >>>Subject: Re: Proposal for lc75/lc88 >>> >>> >>>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. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >> >> >> -- Mark Little Chief Architect Arjuna Technologies Ltd www.arjuna.com
Received on Tuesday, 21 June 2005 11:12:09 UTC