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] Comments on proposed resolution to BINDINGS-126

Two issues I have with mandating support for WS-Policy Framework [1] are:

1) The proposal does not require support for any WS-Policy assertion. 
One can't tell the difference between an implementation that doesn't 
parse and understand WS-Policy semantics/syntax and an implementation 
that does, but doesn't support any WS-Policy assertions. From a 
customer/tester's perspective they are exactly the same.

One solution to this is to mandate support for the WS-Addressing 
WS-Policy assertion. This requirement doesn't not put too much burden on 
the impl. Most (all?) stacks that have WS-* support support 
WS-Addressing. But this would be a change for the spec; currently 
WS-Addressing is not required.

I tend to think that requiring WS-Addressing adds a much much smaller 
burden on implementations than requiring WS-Policy Framework support.

2) Just WS-Policy Framework support isn't enough wrt that is intended 
here. We also need to have support for Policy Attachment [2] using WSDL 1.1.

To fix this, I would change part (a) to require support for [2].


[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/REC-ws-policy-20070904/

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