RE: [ws-rx] Issue i024

[Ashok Malhotra <ashok.malhotra@oracle.com>]

Hi Umit:
First we need to understand the possible uses of the assertion.
After we do that we can propose a header -- that's the easy part!

All the best, Ashok
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Yalcinalp, Umit [mailto:umit.yalcinalp@sap.com] 
> Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2005 2:50 PM
> To: ashok.malhotra@oracle.com; ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: RE: [ws-rx] Issue i024
> 
>  
> 
> > -----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
> 
>