uddi-spec message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: RE: [uddi-spec] Policy support - wsdl policy use case
- From: "Luc Clement" <luc.clement@systinet.com>
- To: "Luc Clement" <luc.clement@systinet.com>,<uddi-spec@lists.oasis-open.org>
- Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 07:29:51 -0400
Dear
members:
As we embark on
tackling policy in the context of the technical notes [1], [2] and
[3]
I'd like
us to also consider and ensure that we look a set of specific modeling
requirements which today are not directly supported by WS-PolicyAttachment IMO.
I offer
the attached WSDL and it use of WS-Policy (ignore for the moment that it
references the 2002 version of WS-Pol) as a set of concrete requirements
that we need to address in the context of representing this
in registry (to make it discoverable... I'll avoid stating the other
obvious use cases).
What this WSDL does
is simply demonstrate the need to:
- identify whether a
policy is a capability or a constraint;
there are some that would consider configuration policy (not
a view that I hold). To my way of thinking, one's capability is another's
constraint. While the WSDL does not clearly put this out as a consideration,
we need to tackle this issue.
- As you can tell
from the WSDL, policy constraints (confidentiality and integrity constraints)
and policy capability (use of x509v3 token - you might not agree on whether
capability or constraint - so be it - not that important at this point other
than to clearly call out the need to understand both cases) need to be
expressed not only on the access point (i.e. the uddi:bindingTemplate) but at
the operation level and in this specific case the message
level.
Does this imply
that we have to map operations and messages to the registry and update the
WSDL/UDDI mapping and update ws-policyattachment? No. We surely may have to
review the WSDL/UDDI mapping but I would not jump to the conclusion that
we must map ops and msgs simply to be able to tack on a policy
expression. I think what is required is the means to express on the
uddi:bindingTemplates constraints and capabilities that apply to its messages
and operations. We might convince ourselves that we have to reify operations
in the registry, but once you do that what would be the rationale for not
reifying the messages (and maybe we will need to) ... ok so I digress...
I think you know where I'm going with this.
Unfortunately, I can't be on the call
tomorrow. I scheduled a TC call and a flight to the west coast at the same time.
Oops... sorry.
Please review. I hope that this will help kick off out
policy deliberations and work.
Regards,
Luc
Luc Clément | Program Director
| Systinet Corporation |
Co-Chair OASIS UDDI Specification Technical
Committee
One van de Graaff Drive Burlington, MA 01803
Phone +1
781.362.1330 | Mobile +1 978.793.2162 | Fax +1 781.362.1400 |
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]