RE: [ws-rx] Proposal for issue i075 resolution

["Giovanni Boschi" <gboschi@sonicsoftware.com>]

Say we have endpoints EP1 and EP2, a sender sends a message to each in
that order, and both messages must be included in the same sequence.
Their respective applicable policies are P1 and P2.  It doesn't really
matter what's in the policies, just assume it's something that matters:
I specifically configured EP1 to use P1 rather than P2, and viceversa,
because it's important for whatever reason.

-----
Section 2.1 add new text to follow line 109:
"When a RM Destination provides RM services for more than one endpoint
it is RECOMMENDED that all the endpoints should have the same values for
RM Policy parameters. If the RM Policies are not the same then the RM
Policy parameters in effect for each Sequence is governed by the
endpoint that was used for the <wsrm:CreateSequence> message."
-----

If I'm reading it right, the proposal says that:

- If I call CreateSequence on EP1, then both P1 and P2 are "in effect"
for EP2
- If I call CreateSequence on EP2, then both P1 and P2 are "in effect"
for EP1

The question of which policies are "in effect" for which entities is
squarely in the scope of WS-PolicyAttachment; we would now be in the
business of "extending" the WSPA rules in the RM policy spec, in a way
not at all envisioned by WSPA:  a policy tool would now need to
understand RM in order to tell me which policies apply to which
endpoint.

This doesn't sound right to me.

G.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Anish Karmarkar [mailto:Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com]
> Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2005 6:26 PM
> To: wsrx
> Subject: [ws-rx] Proposal for issue i075 resolution
> 
> Matt, PaulF, Jacques and I discussed the ideas that were on the
> whiteboard yesterday (options 1 thru 4) and came up with the following
> proposal to resolve issue i075.
> 
> -----
> Section 2.1 add new text to follow line 109:
> "When a RM Destination provides RM services for more than one endpoint
> it is RECOMMENDED that all the endpoints should have the same values
for
> RM Policy parameters. If the RM Policies are not the same then the RM
> Policy parameters in effect for each Sequence is governed by the
> endpoint that was used for the <wsrm:CreateSequence> message."
> -----
> 
> We also propose a new issue, to aid the RMS/RMD/AS/AD in cases where
> policies/WSDL are not advertised, or the RMS is not WSDL/policy aware.
> The advantage of this would be that now we have a mechanism for RMD to
> specify the RM assertion for the Sequence as opposed to per
port/endpoint.
> 
> New issue (not formated to the new issue template -- will do that in a
> separate email so that it is easier to track):
> 
> -----
> 1) An RMD is allowed to optionally assert in CSR message the policy
> assertion associated with the Sequence. This policy assertion may
> contain parameter that we have defined in WSRMP and/or extensibility
> elements.
> 
> 2) Similarly, the RMS is allowed to optionally assert in the
wsrm:Offer
> part of the CS message the policy assertion associated with the
Sequence
> in the opposite direction.
> 
> The CSR/CS  message will now be:
> 
> <wsrm:CreateSequenceResponse ...>
>    <wsrm:Identifier ...> xs:anyURI </wsrm:Identifier>
>    <wsrm:Expires> xs:duration </wsrm:Expires> ?
>    <wsrm:Accept ...>
>      <wsrm:AcksTo ...> wsa:EndpointReferenceType </wsrm:AcksTo>
>      ...
>    </wsrm:Accept> ?
>    <wsrmp:RMAssertion ...>... </wsrmp:RMAssertion>?
>    ...
> </wsrm:CreateSequenceResponse>
> 
> <wsrm:CreateSequence ...>
>    <wsrm:AcksTo ...> wsa:EndpointReferenceType </wsrm:AcksTo>
>    <wsrm:Expires ...> xs:duration </wsrm:Expires> ?
>    <wsrm:Offer ...>
>      <wsrm:Identifier ...> xs:anyURI </wsrm:Identifier>
>      <wsrm:Expires ...> xs:duration </wsrm:Expires> ?
>      <wsrmp:RMAssertion ...>... </wsrmp:RMAssertion>?
>      ...
>    </wsrm:Offer> ?
>    ...
> </wsrm:CreateSequence>
> 
> a) Is it optional for the RMD to include wsrmp:RMAssertion?
> yes
> 
> b) Is the wsrmp:RMAssertion in the CSR definitive?
> yes
> 
> c) Can the wsp:optional attribute be present in the CS/CSR messages on
> wsrmp:RMAssertion?
> no
> -----
>