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


Hi.
 
I don't know why, but I am receiving all your emails, even they don't are my business.
 
I work by HP, PSG Category Management, in B÷blingen in Germany, and I would preciate, if you didn't send me more emails.
 
Many thanks.
 
Thomas Jensen
HP B÷blingen


From: Luc Clement [mailto:luc.clement@systinet.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2005 06:16
To: Luc Clement; von Riegen, Claus; Rogers, Tony; uddi-spec@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [uddi-spec] Agenda - Tuesday, 18 October 2005, 03:30pm to 05:00pm US ET

ooops... Tony: you did post them. Thanks.


From: Luc Clement [mailto:luc.clement@systinet.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2005 22:45
To: von Riegen, Claus; Rogers, Tony; uddi-spec@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [uddi-spec] Agenda - Tuesday, 18 October 2005, 03:30pm to 05:00pm US ET

We agree on this of course. Nonetheless the use case presented by the WSDL is one we need to have a position on and address. 
 
Tony: could you post the minutes - I'd like to see what was discussed. 


From: von Riegen, Claus [mailto:claus.von.riegen@sap.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2005 14:48
To: Luc Clement; Rogers, Tony; uddi-spec@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: AW: [uddi-spec] Agenda - Tuesday, 18 October 2005, 03:30pm to 05:00pm US ET

Of course, WS-PolicyAttachment does not provide a mechanism to query UDDI for WSDL operations and/or messages associated with a given policy expression. This is because the UDDI data model was not designed to cover all details of a WSDL portType and/or WSDL binding rather than a limitation of WS-PolicyAttachment section 5
 
Claus 


Von: Luc Clement [mailto:luc.clement@systinet.com]
Gesendet: Dienstag, 18. Oktober 2005 14:14
An: Rogers, Tony; uddi-spec@lists.oasis-open.org
Betreff: RE: [uddi-spec] Agenda - Tuesday, 18 October 2005, 03:30pm to 05:00pm US ET

Tony:
 
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. 
Luc

[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]