Re: [ws-rx] i021 proposal

[Doug Davis <dug@us.ibm.com>]

Paul,
  I'm just looking at the other
ws-* specs w.r.t. policy and they don't seem to make the
kind of distinctions we're thinking
about making.  Either 'foo' is on or off - that's about
all they say - and its very simple.
 If we deviate from that pattern we run the risk of
RM being a special case.  If we
believe those other specs are wrong then we should
push the policy experts to agree to
that and then we can be the first to "do it right", but
until then I'm not keen on RM being
the oddball.
-Doug

Paul Fremantle <paul@wso2.com>

02/10/2006 08:45 AM

To	Doug Davis/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS
cc	ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject	Re: [ws-rx] i021 proposal

Doug, Umit,

I think there is a simplicity to this. What you are sating is that there
is no way of expressing in a req-resp WSDL the fact that both directions
are expected to be reliable.
That may be a logical conclusion but its not clear that it fits the 
expected usage of RM in a req-resp scenario.

Paul

Doug Davis wrote:
>
> "Yalcinalp, Umit" <umit.yalcinalp@sap.com> wrote on
02/09/2006 
> 09:43:16 PM:
> ...
> > It seems to me if it would be cleaner to leave the one-way policy
> > assertion at the input message only, so that for the "outbound
messages"
> > the receiving end's policy assertion would apply. I am thinking
in terms
> > reconciling the policies of RMS and RMD at both ends (including
> > extensibility). I think binding/operation/input message should
be
> > sufficient and is simpler.
>
> +1 - keep it simple (and consistent with the other ws-* specs)
>
> -Doug

-- 

Paul Fremantle
VP/Technology, WSO2 and OASIS WS-RX TC Co-chair

http://bloglines.com/blog/paulfremantle
paul@wso2.com

"Oxygenating the Web Service Platform", www.wso2.com