[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: NEW ISSUE: What is the effective policy when RM policyassertion is present at multiple places?
New issue raised by Anish re. RM Assertion. All the best, Ashok > -----Original Message----- > From: Anish Karmarkar [mailto:Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com] > Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2006 11:20 PM > To: wsrx > Subject: NEW ISSUE: What is the effective policy when RM > policy assertion is present at multiple places? > > 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. > > >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]