NEW ISSUE: What is the effective policy when RM policy assertionis present at multiple places?

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

Title: What is the effective policy when RM policy assertion is present 
at multiple places?

Description:

WSRMP spec currently contains the following text:

"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."

Firstly, we do not define any RM policy assertion parameters, so I'm not 
sure what the above means. But it does give the impression that:
RM-policy-assertion(port) trumps RM-policy-assertion(binding) which in 
turn trumps RM-policy-assertion(message).

Given that we do not define any parameters the above statement doesn't 
mean anything expect in the context of wsp:Optional. Unless WS-Policy 
and friends define how wsp:Optional is dealt with in such cases, I 
believe we should define how things work in the realm of WSRM. Specifically:

If wsdl:binding/wsdl:operation/wsdl:input (or wsdl:output or wsdl:fault) 
has <wsrmp:RMAssertion wsp:Optional='false'/> and wsdl:binding has 
<wsrmp:RMAssertion wsp:Optional='true'/> then the message-level 
assertion should trump the binding-level assertion (i.e. RM is mandatory 
for that message). The message-level assertion is more specific and that 
is the one that should be used (for that message) than the binding-level 
assertion.

Similarly,

If wsdl:binding has <wsrmp:RMAssertion wsp:Optional='false'/> and 
wsdl:service/wsdl:port has <wsrmp:RMAssertion wsp:Optional='true'/> then 
the binding-level assertion should trump the port-level assertion (i.e. 
RM is still mandatory for that binding). The binding-level assertion is 
a contract that must be adhered to by any port that uses it (one could 
argue that the assertion at the port is in violation of the binding 
contract).


Justification:

See above.

Target: wsrm policy

Proposal:

Include language in the spec that makes it clear how wsp:Optional is 
handled when RM assertion is present at more than one WSDL constructs.