RE: [ws-rx] Proposal for RM Policy assertions

["Patil, Sanjay" <sanjay.patil@sap.com>]

Hi Ashok,

Thanks for putting together a formal proposal.

One comment: 
The following text in the section 2.5.2 would perhaps be outdated (and
therefore removed) by your proposal: "This assertion is effectively
meaningless unless it occurs in conjunction with the RMAssertion".

-- Sanjay 

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Ashok Malhotra [mailto:ashok.malhotra@oracle.com] 
>Sent: Wednesday, Jan 17, 2007 13:49 PM
>To: ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
>Subject: [ws-rx] Proposal for RM Policy assertions
>
>Based on our discussions last week in which we decided that it 
>would be desirable to remove the dependence of the RM policy 
>assertions on one another, here is a proposal that attempts to 
>accomplish this.
>
>The RM assertion comes in 3 different flavors:
>
>1. <wsrmp:RMAssertion [wsp:Optional="true"]? ... />
>
>2. <wsrmp:RMAssertion [wsp:Optional="true"]? ... >
>      <wsp:Policy>
>                <wsrmp:SequenceSTR />
>      </wsp:Policy>
>   </wsrmp:RMAssertion>
>
>3. <wsp:Policy>
>  <wsp:ExactlyOne>
>    <wsp:All>
>      <wsrm:RMAssertion [wsp:Optional="true"]? ...>
>       <wsp:Policy>
>        <wsrmp:SequenceTransportSecurity  />
>       <wsp:Policy>
>      </wsrm:RMAssertion>
>      <sp:TransportBinding ...>
>        ...
>      </sp:TransportBinding>
>    </wsp:All>
>  </wsp:ExactlyOne>
></wsp:Policy>
>
>The third form says that an endpoint may have RM as an option 
>but always requires HTTPS to be used. All the 
>SequenceTransportSecurity assertion indicates is that RM's 
>rules for protecting the sequence over TLS are followed.
>
>If we agree on these 3 assertions, the text in sections 2.5.1 
>and 2.5.2 would need to be changed to reflect assertion 2 and 
>3 above.  See attached Word Document.
>
>  
>
>
>All the best, Ashok
>