- From: Marc Hadley <Marc.Hadley@Sun.COM>
- Date: Thu, 05 May 2005 13:45:39 -0400
- To: Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
- Cc: public-ws-addressing@w3.org
On Apr 29, 2005, at 5:31 PM, Jonathan Marsh wrote: > > Oops, this should have been lc34. Changed the title. > >> >> Per my AI, here is an alternate proposal for duplicate header faults. >> >> Add in Section 3.3 (SOAP Binding) just before the intro to the >> example: >> 'A message MUST not contain more than one wsa:To, wsa:ReplyTo, >> wsa:FaultTo, wsa:Action, or wsa:MessageID header targeted to the >> ultimate receiver. A recipient MUST generate a >> wsa:DuplicateMessageAddressingHeader fault in this case.' >> As discussed on this weeks call I think we should remove 'ultimate' in the above. There's nothing particularly special about intermediaries from a SOAP header processing model point of view so the above rule should apply equally to the ultimate receiver and any intermediaries in the SOAP message path. Marc. >> Add a new Section 5.3 >> >> "Section 5.3 Duplicate Addressing Header >> "More than one header representing a message addressing property >> targeted to the ultimate destination, is present. >> [Code] S:Sender >> [Subcode] wsa:DuplicateMessageAddressingHeader >> [Reason] A header which can only occur once targeted to a the >> ultimate >> destination representing a message addressing property is >> present more than once. >> [Detail] [Duplicate header QName] >> >> FWIW, I don't think this case warrants the definition of a new type of >> fault (where will that end?), and prefer my original proposal. >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: public-ws-addressing-comments-request@w3.org >> [mailto:public-ws-addressing-comments-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of >> Jonathan Marsh >> Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2005 2:21 PM >> To: public-ws-addressing-comments@w3.org >> Subject: Duplicate headers at the ultimate receiver (SOAP, >> substantive) >> >> >> We have agreed that it is acceptable for a message to contain >> duplicate >> WSA headers, as long as they are targeted differently. To improve >> interoperability, we should clarify what happens when duplicate >> headers >> targeted to the ultimate recipient are inserted in a message: >> >> 'A message MUST not contain more than one wsa:To, wsa:ReplyTo, >> wsa:FaultTo, wsa:Action, or wsa:MessageID header targeted to the >> ultimate receiver. A recipient MUST generate a >> wsa:InvalidMessageAddressingProperty fault in this case.' >> >> > > > --- Marc Hadley <marc.hadley at sun.com> Business Alliances, CTO Office, Sun Microsystems.
Received on Thursday, 5 May 2005 17:45:54 UTC