Re: [ws-rx] i021 Proposal

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

In general I quite like this proposal. Two comments about 'parameters' 
below.

-Anish
--

Patil, Sanjay wrote:
> 
> Here is an updated proposal for resolving the long pending issue i021. 
> The key difference in comparison to what exists in the WS-RM Policy 
> specification today is that -- the proposal allows Message Policy 
> Subject (in addition to the Endpoint Policy Subject) for the RM Policy 
> assertion.
> 
> I would also like to bring to your notice that this proposal:
> -- Avoids text that would repeat the semantics already addressed in 
> WS-PolicyAttachment, for example, an Endpoint Policy Subject applies to 
> behaviors associated with all the message exchanges of the endpoint, and 
> applies to aspects of both communicating with as well as instantiating 
> the endpoint. So the proposal would seem a bit short and dry to some people!
> 
> -- Does not include any recommendations for which wsdl elements (among 
> those that are allowed by the proposal - wsdl:port Vs. wsdl:binding 
> Vs.binding level messages) are more appropriate for policy attachment, 
> since this may simply be a matter of best practices and there are no 
> strong technical reasons for the specification to promote one approach 
> over another, IMO.
> 
> -- Does not include any text related to whether and how EPR contained 
> policies may interact with the WSDL attached policies, since I couldn't 
> arrive at any precise and useful (normative) text in this regard.
> 
> Please try to send in your comments before the conf-call tomorrow (2/23)!
> -- Sanjay
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Replace the entire content of section 2.3 (Assertion Attachment) in the 
> WS-RM Policy specification with the following:
> 
> The RM policy assertion is allowed to have the following Policy Subjects 
> [WS-PolicyAttachment]:
> 
>           o Endpoint Policy Subject
>           o Message Policy Subject
> 
> WS-PolicyAttachment defines a set of WSDL/1.1 [WSDL 1.1] policy 
> attachment points for each of the above Policy Subjects. Since an RM 
> policy assertion specifies a concrete behavior, it MUST NOT be attached 
> to the abstract WSDL policy attachment points.
> 
> The following is the list of WSDL/1.1 elements whose scope contains the 
> Policy Subjects allowed for an RM policy assertion but which MUST 
> NOT have RM policy assertions attached: 
> 
>           o wsdl:message
>           o wsdl:portType/wsdl:operation/wsdl:input
>           o wsdl:portType/wsdl:operation/wsdl:output
>           o wsdl:portType/wsdl:operation/wsdl:fault
>           o wsdl:portType
> 
> The following is the list of WSDL/1.1 elements whose scope contains the 
> Policy Subjects allowed for an RM policy assertion and which MAY have RM 
> policy assertions attached:
> 
>           o wsdl:port
>           o wsdl:binding
>           o wsdl:binding/wsdl:operation/wsdl:input
>           o wsdl:binding/wsdl:operation/wsdl:output
>           o wsdl:binding/wsdl:operation/wsdl:fault
> 
> If the RM policy assertion appears in a policy expression attached to a 
> wsdl:binding as well as to the individual wsdl:binding level message 
> definitions(wsdl:binding/wsdl:operation/wsdl:input, 
> wsdl:binding/wsdl:operation/wsdl:output, 
> wsdl:binding/wsdl:operation/wsdl:fault), the parameters in the former 
> MUST be used and the latter ignored.
> 

Since we have gotten rid of all the parameters in WSRMP, what does the 
above sentence mean? I suggest that we get rid the sentence.
Since there aren't any parameters, there is no conflict between RM 
assertions being placed at various WSDL attachment points.

> If the RM policy assertion appears in a policy expression attached to a 
> wsdl:port as well as to the other allowed WSDL/1.1 elements, the 
> parameters in the former MUST be used and the latter ignored.
> 

same as above.

>