OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

ws-rx message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]


Subject: RE: [ws-rx] i021 Proposal



If we added the following, IBM could support this proposal.

If an RM policy assertion is attached to any of:

then an RM policy assertion, specifying wsp:Optional=true MUST be attached to the corresponding wsdl:binding or wsdl:port, indicating that the endpoint supports WS-RM. Any messages, regardless of whether they have an attached Message Policy Subject RM policy assertion, MAY be sent to that endpoint using WS-RM. Additionally, the receiving endpoint MUST NOT reject any message belonging to a Sequence, simply because there was no Message Policy Subject RM policy assertion attached to that message.

Cheers,

Christopher Ferris
STSM, Software Group Standards Strategy
email: chrisfer@us.ibm.com
blog: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/dw_blog.jspa?blog=440
phone: +1 508 377 9295


"Patil, Sanjay" <sanjay.patil@sap.com> wrote on 02/23/2006 12:02:39 AM:

>  

> First of all, I hate to call the proposal as my proposal because it
> is really building upon ideas of several TC members :)

>  
> On your point about clarifying the message level applicability when
> EPS is involved, I personally prefer that we do not duplicate (and
> risk conflicting with) the semantics described (should I say alluded
> to) in the policy framework. However, I am open to suggestions for
> adding clarification text.

>  
> -- Sanjay
>
> From: Ashok Malhotra [mailto:ashok.malhotra@oracle.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, Feb 22, 2006 16:38 PM
> To: Patil, Sanjay; wsrx
> Subject: RE: [ws-rx] i021 Proposal

> Hi Sanjay:
> In this proposal, unlike your previous one, you do not specify that
> if the RM assertion is applied

> to a WSDL message definition it applies to that message alone and if
> it is applied to a port or a binding

> it applies to all messages under that port/binding definition.
>  
> You probably did that to avoid duplication, but WS-PolicyAttachment
> is famously vague about this and

> it would be better to spell it out clearly in the WS-RX spec.
> All the best, Ashok
>  
>
> From: Patil, Sanjay [mailto:sanjay.patil@sap.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2006 12:33 PM
> To: wsrx
> Subject: [ws-rx] i021 Proposal

>
> 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]:

> Endpoint Policy Subject
> 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:

> wsdl:message
> wsdl:portType/wsdl:operation/wsdl:input
> wsdl:portType/wsdl:operation/wsdl:output
> wsdl:portType/wsdl:operation/wsdl:fault
> 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:

> wsdl:port
> wsdl:binding
> wsdl:binding/wsdl:operation/wsdl:input
> wsdl:binding/wsdl:operation/wsdl:output
> 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.

> 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.


[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]