RE: [ws-rx] Issue i024

["Yalcinalp, Umit" <umit.yalcinalp@sap.com>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ashok Malhotra [mailto:ashok.malhotra@oracle.com] 
> Sent: Wednesday, Sep 14, 2005 12:44 PM
> To: ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: [ws-rx] Issue i024
> 
> This is in response to Sanjay's note asking for a proposal 
> for issue i024.
> In this case, though, what we are asking for may be a 
> clarification and not a change.
> 
> The WS-RM Policy spec defines a RM assertion.  It also 
> specifies how this assertion
> may be attached to WSDL.  What is does not specify is the 
> motivation behind the
> assertion, how it is used and the messages it applies to.  We 
> would like this clarified.
> 
> It is clear that the RM assertion is an 'informational 
> assertion' in that it is a 
> property of the sequence and not a property of the messages 
> in the sequence.  As such,
> it does not make sense for each message to include this information.
> 
> Second, policy information is meant to be conveyed by one 
> party in a conversation to
> the other.  In this case, the assertion seems to specify 
> implementation parameters
> that may be private to the RMS or the RMD.  If so, it does 
> not need to be part of the
> specification.
> 
> If, indeed, the RM assertion is to be conveyed from the RMS 
> to the RMD it can be
> done as a header in the CreateSequence message.  The RMD can 
> respond with a header 
> in the CreateSequenceResponse by agreeing, disagreeing or 
> making a counter proposal.

I thought the idea was to propose the schema element for this and its
content so we can discuss... If we were to allow a header, I would like
to see what it contains, etc. 


> 
> If the RM assertion has to be conveyed from the RMD to the 
> RMS, this has to be done
> before the CreateSequence message and requires a new protocol element.

Perhaps I am missing sth. Why do we need to do that in the protocol?
Since this would be associated with a WSDL (presumably) as an attachment
or separate file, wouldn't the RM assertion at the RMD side be known
already. 

> 
> All the best, Ashok
> 
> 

--umit