[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [ws-rx] Issue i024
> -----Original Message----- > From: Ashok Malhotra [mailto:ashok.malhotra@oracle.com] > Sent: Thursday, Sep 15, 2005 5:54 AM > To: Yalcinalp, Umit; ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org > Subject: RE: [ws-rx] Issue i024 > > 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 Yes, that is why I was trying to understand your second suggestion which was not answered by your email. I think you are making some assumptions with respect to scoping of the assertions which I am trying to uncover. Could you clarify in which situations you envision RMD side assertions needs to communicate RMS in a separate protocol element and whether that protocol element must be defined by this specification? Typically, the endpoint would already have the assertion associated (WSDL/Attachment) which is already available. The scope is the endpoint. I presume you are thinking of different scoping requirement here. Thanks, --umit > > > > -----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 > > > > > >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]