[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [ws-rx] Issue i024
Yalcinalp, Umit wrote: > > > >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Ashok Malhotra [mailto:ashok.malhotra@oracle.com] >>Sent: Thursday, Sep 15, 2005 5:54 AM >>To: Yalcinalp, Umit; ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org >>Subject: RE: [ws-rx] Issue i024 >> >>Hi Umit: >>First we need to understand the possible uses of the assertion. >>After we do that we can propose a header -- that's the easy part! >> >>All the best, Ashok > > > Yes, that is why I was trying to understand your second suggestion which > was not answered by your email. I think you are making some assumptions > with respect to scoping of the assertions which I am trying to uncover. > > Could you clarify in which situations you envision RMD side assertions > needs to communicate RMS in a separate protocol element and whether that > protocol element must be defined by this specification? Typically, the > endpoint would already have the assertion associated (WSDL/Attachment) > which is already available. The scope is the endpoint. I presume you are > thinking of different scoping requirement here. > Is there an assumption here that the endpoint is alwasy the RMD? There are cases where it isn't: out-only operations, out-part of in-out operations etc. -Anish -- > Thanks, > > --umit > > >> >> >> >>>-----Original Message----- >>>From: Yalcinalp, Umit [mailto:umit.yalcinalp@sap.com] >>>Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2005 2:50 PM >>>To: ashok.malhotra@oracle.com; ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org >>>Subject: RE: [ws-rx] Issue i024 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>>-----Original Message----- >>>>From: Ashok Malhotra [mailto:ashok.malhotra@oracle.com] >>>>Sent: Wednesday, Sep 14, 2005 12:44 PM >>>>To: ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org >>>>Subject: [ws-rx] Issue i024 >>>> >>>>This is in response to Sanjay's note asking for a proposal >>> >>>for issue >>> >>>>i024. >>>>In this case, though, what we are asking for may be a >> >>clarification >> >>>>and not a change. >>>> >>>>The WS-RM Policy spec defines a RM assertion. It also >>> >>>specifies how >>> >>>>this assertion may be attached to WSDL. What is does not >>> >>>specify is >>> >>>>the motivation behind the assertion, how it is used and the >>> >>>messages >>> >>>>it applies to. We would like this clarified. >>>> >>>>It is clear that the RM assertion is an 'informational >>> >>>assertion' in >>> >>>>that it is a property of the sequence and not a property of the >>>>messages in the sequence. As such, it does not make >> >>sense for each >> >>>>message to include this information. >>>> >>>>Second, policy information is meant to be conveyed by one >>> >>>party in a >>> >>>>conversation to the other. In this case, the assertion seems to >>>>specify implementation parameters that may be private to >> >>the RMS or >> >>>>the RMD. If so, it does not need to be part of the specification. >>>> >>>>If, indeed, the RM assertion is to be conveyed from the RMS >>> >>>to the RMD >>> >>>>it can be done as a header in the CreateSequence message. >>> >>>The RMD can >>> >>>>respond with a header in the CreateSequenceResponse by agreeing, >>>>disagreeing or making a counter proposal. >>> >>>I thought the idea was to propose the schema element for this >>>and its content so we can discuss... If we were to allow a >>>header, I would like to see what it contains, etc. >>> >>> >>> >>>>If the RM assertion has to be conveyed from the RMD to the >>> >>>RMS, this >>> >>>>has to be done before the CreateSequence message and >> >>requires a new >> >>>>protocol element. >>> >>>Perhaps I am missing sth. Why do we need to do that in the protocol? >>>Since this would be associated with a WSDL (presumably) as an >>>attachment or separate file, wouldn't the RM assertion at the >>>RMD side be known already. >>> >>> >>>>All the best, Ashok >>>> >>>> >>> >>>--umit >>> >>> >> >>
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]