From: Doug Davis
[mailto:dug@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Monday, February 05, 2007
10:52 AM
To: Ashok
Malhotra
Cc: wsrx
Subject: Re: [ws-rx] RM Assertion
-- Issue 37 -- once again
Ashok,
I assumed that the semantics of what I put into CD05 was the same as your
proposal. I didn't think collapsing the 3 outlines into one would change
the meaning. Sorry if it does. I'll work on splitting them out into
3 tonight. All - since I'm going to be in there anyway, if you noticed
any typos please send them ASAP so I can add those as well.
thanks
-Doug
______________________________________________________
STSM | Web Services Architect | IBM Software Group
(919) 254-6905 | IBM T/L 444-6905 | dug@us.ibm.com
|
"Ashok
Malhotra" <ashok.malhotra@oracle.com>
02/05/2007 09:04 AM
|
|
To
|
wsrx
<ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org>
|
|
cc
|
|
|
Subject
|
[ws-rx] RM Assertion -- Issue 37 -- once
again
|
|
On
the Jan 25 telcon, the TC accepted my proposal for the RM assertions.
I've omitted the URLs for the proposal and the minutes since the note was
getting truncated there.
The latest draft of the RM Policy document,
however, does not reflect the decision correctly.
Section 2.2 shows the outline for the RM assertion
(DA assertion removed for brevity).
<wsrmp:RMAssertion
[wsp:Optional="true"]? ... >
<wsp:Policy>
[ <wsrmp:SequenceSTR/> |
<wsrmp:SequenceTransportSecurity/> ] ?
</wsp:Policy>
...
</wsrmp:RMAssertion>
The Sequence Transport Security Assertion
described in section 2.5.2, does not follow this outline.
<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 proposal that was accepted by the TC
recommended that the RM assertion be described in 3 flavors and all the flavors
be described in a single section. This should be implemented.
All the best, Ashok