[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [sca-bindings] Comments on proposed resolution to BINDINGS-126
Two issues I have with mandating support for WS-Policy Framework [1] are: 1) The proposal does not require support for any WS-Policy assertion. One can't tell the difference between an implementation that doesn't parse and understand WS-Policy semantics/syntax and an implementation that does, but doesn't support any WS-Policy assertions. From a customer/tester's perspective they are exactly the same. One solution to this is to mandate support for the WS-Addressing WS-Policy assertion. This requirement doesn't not put too much burden on the impl. Most (all?) stacks that have WS-* support support WS-Addressing. But this would be a change for the spec; currently WS-Addressing is not required. I tend to think that requiring WS-Addressing adds a much much smaller burden on implementations than requiring WS-Policy Framework support. 2) Just WS-Policy Framework support isn't enough wrt that is intended here. We also need to have support for Policy Attachment [2] using WSDL 1.1. To fix this, I would change part (a) to require support for [2]. -Anish -- [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/REC-ws-policy-20070904/ [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/REC-ws-policy-attach-20070904/#AttachingPolicyUsingWSDL1.1
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]