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


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

sca-bindings message

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

Subject: Re: [sca-bindings] Issue 124 proposal version 2 - a comment

Hi Mike,

Was their discussion of your point during the conference call?

What are the cases here?
  • service, @wsdlElement references port - BWS20007 states that you must somehow interpret policy from the WSDL, and that that policy must match....
  • service, @wsdlElement references binding - BWS20011 - ditto.
  • reference, @wsdlElement references port - BWS20009 - ditto
  • reference, @wsdlElement references binding - BWS20013 - ditto.
  • reference, @wsdlElement references service - oops, looks like we missed this case.
So my interpretation is that if you reference a WSDL directly, if you don't understand some policy language, then you'll be forced to reject scenarios that the customer expects you to accept.  Yet, if I'm reading SCA-Policy correctly, a conforming runtime will already support WS-Policy.  So the scenario is that it could somehow feign ignorance of WS-Policy when it encounters it in WSDL when used by binding.ws, but support it in other circumstances?

I agree that there's a gap here, but it is a really small one.

Here's a question: If I refer to a WSDL port, is it legitimate for an implementation to *add* policy implementation on top of a bare port declaration - that is one that doesn't have WS-Policy statements?  For example:
  • Can an implementation satisfy a policy intent with the use of mutual SSL authentication, even if there's nothing about that stated in the WSDL port that the @wsdlElement references (although presumably it uses an "https" URL scheme)?
  • Likewise, can an implementation decide to use WS-RM even if the referenced WSDL port doesn't state that in the WSDL?
The port form of @wsdlElement, then, becomes a way to specify mapping of SOAP constructs to the XML payload, and not necessarily other constraints.

Are we over-specifying this?

On the WSDL generation side, do we want to mandate that a WSDL MUST be generated with WS-Policy statements?  Should we add something to section 2.4?  My quick take is that we should not mandate it.


On 03/25/2010 04:42 AM, Mike Edwards wrote:
OF19546138.B7DB06E5-ON802576F1.00400CC7-802576F1.0040522A@uk.ibm.com" type="cite">

I'd like to pick up on something Eric mentions in his email below:

" In the context of SCA, if someone uses the @wsdlElement form, then they'd be forced to support the WS-Policy spec"

I find it surprising that the SCA binding.ws specification does not REQUIRE support of the WS-Policy specification.

This is particularly the case given that the spec defines a WS-Policy policy.

So: Should we raise an issue to add a conformance requirement that a binding.ws implementation MUST support the WS-Policy
specification (although not any specific policy assertions other than the one defined within the binding.ws spec).?

Yours,  Mike.

Strategist - Emerging Technologies, SCA & SDO.
Co Chair OASIS SCA Assembly TC.
IBM Hursley Park, Mail Point 146, Winchester, SO21 2JN, Great Britain.
Phone & FAX: +44-1962-818014    Mobile: +44-7802-467431  
Email:  mike_edwards@uk.ibm.com

From: Eric Johnson <eric@tibco.com>
To: Anish Karmarkar <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com>
Cc: sca-bindings@lists.oasis-open.org
Date: 25/03/2010 05:59
Subject: Re: [sca-bindings] Issue 124 proposal version 2

Hi Anish,

On 03/24/2010 02:51 PM, Anish Karmarkar wrote:

Version 2 based on feedback from last week's call is attached.

* Fixed editorial bugs pointed out by EricJ in section 6.

* I did some due diligence on the question of whether creating independent conformance points for WSCB service/client results in a problem (as pointed out by EricJ), since the other non-section5 conformance items are no longer applicable to WSCB service/client. I found 5 assertions that are somewhat related (noted below). The others are about binding.ws syntactic elements/attributes or something similar.

Thanks for spending the time to do that.  I've been hoping to find the time to get to that all week, and didn't, so I'm glad you did.

a) there is MUST for SOAP 1.1 and a SHOULD for SOAP 1.2. Section 5 also talks in several places about SOAP header blocks. Strictly speaking there is no necessity to require SOAP (1.1 or 1.2) for this protocol. It could depend only on WS-Addressing. But that is a separate issue. To fix this, I have changed the intro to 5.1 to state that this is a soap/ws-addressing based protocol. I didn't see a reason to introduce assertions for requiring SOAP/WS-A. It is required by definition. But if ppl feel strongly we can introduce new conformance items.

Seems sort of ironic, though, if we define this stand-alone protocol, and then it is possible to implement it in a way that is conformant, and yet not compatible with an SCA runtime.  Seems to me that we should require the equivalent level of SOAP support, and therefore have the MUST and SHOULD requirements around SOAP.

Maybe this is an equivalent nit, but we should likewise require support for HTTP & HTTPS.

BWS50010 is sort of tricky.  In the context of SCA, if someone uses the @wsdlElement form, then they'd be forced to support the WS-Policy spec, as well as this requirement to recognize this policy assertion when it appears in WSDL.  Yet if we step away from that, to this stand-alone definition, what's the conformance target for saying "if your WSCB supports WSDL, then you must support this policy assertion?"

Likewise for BWS50013 & 50014.

b) There is a requirement for conforming to SCA assembly and policy. I don't think this is needed (it would defeat the purpose of the issue itself).

c) There is a SHOULD for http endpoints to provide a wsdl description when queried with ?wsdl and a SHOULD for non http endpoints to provide some way to obtain the WSDL descriptions. I didn't see a need to have this requirement on WSCB service/client endpoints. I see this as a SCA runtime requirement not a protocol requirement.

* wrt Dave's comment about BWS5005/7, I'm not sure what needs to change. I added a sentence at the beginning of section 5.1 that says that WSCB service implements the forward interface and the WSCB client implements the callback interface.


Miscellaneous nit - Sections 6.2 & 6.3 reference Appendix B for "Conformance items related to WSCB...", but that shows up as Appendix C.

And in section C, I don't see that you've separated out the conformance requirements for WSCB client and server into a separate section.

Two minor editorial nits that I noticed, which Anish's proposal didn't change, per-se:
"There are four categories of artifacts for which... SCA WS Binding XML Document ... SCA Runtime"

Shouldn't this be (to match the plural form):
"There are four categories of artifacts for which... SCA WS Binding XML Documents ... SCA Runtimes"

I also don't like the use of "artifact" here, because I associate the word with something less operational than an "SCA Runtime".  Can't we just use the phrase:
"This specification defines four targets for conformance:"



On 3/18/2010 9:01 AM, Anish Karmarkar wrote:

Proposal for issue 124 as outlined in [1] is attached.



To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
generates this mail.  Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:


To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
generates this mail.  Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:

Unless stated otherwise above:
IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 741598.
Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU

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