Re: [sca-bindings] Issue 126: proposal to add support for ws-addr(v1)

[Anish Karmarkar <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com>]

Mike,

I do agree with you that without requiring at least one concrete 
assertion there is no point to requiring ws-policy support. But I don't 
think security assertions are the ones that should be mandated. That 
raises the bar significantly higher. I can think of plenty of 
controlled/protected environments where security isn't going to be 
required. WS-A, OTOH, is a cinch if you already require SOAP.

-Anish
--

On 5/6/2010 6:10 AM, Mike Edwards wrote:
>
> Folks,
>
> I'd first like to thank Anish for the work he has done on the proposal
> document.
>
> However, after thinking more about this issue and discussing it within
> IBM, I have reached the
> conclusion that there is not much point in requiring support of
> WS-Policy without having some
> concrete policies that are required to be supported by any binding.ws
> implementation.
>
> I'm afraid that I don't think that the WS-Addressing assertion or the
> WS-Callback assertion
> qualify. I believe that both are optional.
>
> As a result, at the moment, I see no concrete assertions which force the
> requirement to support WS-Policy.
>
> I think that we should Close with No Action Issue 126 and bring
> something like it back in the future
> if we ever decide to add mandatory support for one or more assertions
> (eg security related assertions).
>
>
>
> Yours, Mike.
>
> Strategist - Emerging Technologies, SCA & SDO.
> Co Chair OASIS SCA Assembly TC.
> IBM Hursley Park, Mail Point 146, Winchester, SO21 2JN, Great Britain.
> Phone & FAX: +44-1962-818014 Mobile: +44-7802-467431
> Email: mike_edwards@uk.ibm.com
>
>
> From: 	Eric Johnson <eric@tibco.com>
> To: 	Anish Karmarkar <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com>
> Cc: 	OASIS Bindings <sca-bindings@lists.oasis-open.org>
> Date: 	06/05/2010 01:56
> Subject: 	Re: [sca-bindings] Issue 126: proposal to add support for
> ws-addr (v1)
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> I've not looked at the specific proposal yet, but my skepticism persists.
>
> Just because we're unable to to test a proposal to mandate something,
> we've gone down the path of:
>
>     * Mandating support for WS-Addressing
>     * Mandating support for EPR where we used to just suggest it.
>     * Mandating support for the WS-Policy indication that flags the use
>       of WS-Addressing
>     * Mandating support of the protocol assertion for the protocol when
>       support is there
>
> ... all around an issue where we all seem to agree that the use cases
> are unclear. My design instincts are screaming "feature creep!" All of
> this nets out to an implementation needing to recognize the
> WS-Addressing assertion in a concrete referenced WSDL, and then using
> the support that we've now mandated. It doesn't actually reveal much
> about actual support for the underlying concern - WS-Policy. The above
> set of mandates does reveal the ability to recognize XML elements in a
> particular scenario and not barf them up, but that's about it.
>
> WS-Policy is a particular XML-based expression of a model for policies -
> a "platform dependent model" (PDM) in UML terms. SCA intents come close
> to being a "platform independent model" for policy requirements as I've
> seen.
>
> Without a mandate to use WS-Policy, implementers can happily punt on
> correlating between the two, and hopefully avoid complexity for
> themselves and their customers by always generating one (the PDM) from
> the other (PIM). In fact, the way to generate the PDM from the PIM is to
> define the mechanism that does the one-way translation. In mandating
> WS-Policy, we might make it necessary for implementations to think about
> having a bi-directional model between the two, where (a) it might not
> make sense, and (b) it may actually be more confusing to the end-user
> than simply giving an implementation the freedom to say "I don't
> understand how to do what you're asking me."
>
> Does anyone actually have implementation experience that suggests that
> this particular mandate works? If so, I will happily hear the details
> and how they work, and be quiet. Otherwise, I think we're going to far
> with 126.
>
> -Eric
>
> On 05/05/2010 01:09 PM, Anish Karmarkar wrote:
> Attached.
>
> The proposal uses cd03-rev4 as the basis (with changes accepted). The
> relevant changes are confined to section 2.10 (new section) and section
> 6.4. Do note that Mike & I had taken a joint AI to produce a complete
> proposal for issue 126. The attached doc adds support for ws-addr but
> not for ws-policy.
>
> I have made one change that was not discussed on previous calls or on
> the ML: when the callback protocol is supported I had made changes that
> require the runtime to support the callback protocol policy assertion.
> Since this proposal is about requiring ws-policy, I thought it made a
> lot of sense to mandate support for the protocol assertion when the
> protocol is supported.
>
> If this (or something like this) is accepted, I think we should make the
> endpointReference element mandatory (currently it is a SHOULD).
> Especially, since the UPA issue resolution means that it would be the
> same element defined in ws-address. But on the last call, someone
> expressed preference to deal with this separately. I'll raise an issue
> related to that if/when 126 is resolved.
>
> Mike: I know this proposal doesn't give you a lot of time to add
> ws-policy support before the bindings call. Please let me know if you
> don't have time and I can try and add that later this evening/tonight
> (my time).
>
> Thanks.
>
> -Anish
> --
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
> generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
> _https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php_
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> /
> /
>
> /Unless stated otherwise above:
> IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number
> 741598.
> Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU/
>
>
>
>
>
>