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


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

uddi-spec message

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

Subject: RE: [uddi-spec] Agenda - Tuesday, 18 October 2005, 03:30pm to 05:00pm US ET

Re:       6.1             WS-PolicyAttachment issue

Luc has raised an issue which he believes is not addressed by WS-PolicyAttachment in its current form.

TC to discuss, and decide on a course of action


Unfortunately I won't be on the call today. I would like to ensure that it is understood that the reason that I sent the wsdl was to use it as a source of use cases; my goal was not to poke holes at WS-PolicyAttachment. I do believe that this demonstrates limitations of Section 5 of WS-PolicyAttachment 2004 and most likely our own WSDL-UDDI 2.0.2 mapping (depending on how we approach policy with the use case I present). To restate my email [1]:


        What this WSDL does is simply demonstrating is 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. 

[1] http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/uddi-spec/200510/msg00007.html


From: Rogers, Tony [mailto:Tony.Rogers@ca.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2005 05:54
To: uddi-spec@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [uddi-spec] Agenda - Tuesday, 18 October 2005, 03:30pm to 05:00pm US ET

Attached please find the agenda for today's telephone conference.
Call details were e-mailed earlier.
Tony Rogers

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