[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [ws-rx] Gil's proposal for i021
From: Doug Davis [mailto:dug@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Saturday, February 04, 2006 1:08 AM
To: ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [ws-rx] Gil's proposal for i021
Gil,
About the split between inbound and outbound messages in your proposal - the other specs that I've seen that use policy do not make this differentiation - they simply say "foo is on" and leave it at that. Whether that means it applies to both directions or just incoming is left a bit vague. I'm wondering if you're suggesting that those other specs are wrong to not have this split? Your proposal adds quite a bit of extra 'stuff' when other specs haven't seen the need to. Without a lot of experience "under our belts" about how people will use this stuff I'm a bit concerned by the inconsistency between what the RM spec would look like (if we adopted your proposal) and the rest of the WS-* specs.
thanks,
-Doug
Christopher B Ferris/Waltham/IBM 02/03/2006 02:53 PM
"Yalcinalp, Umit" <umit.yalcinalp@sap.com> Doug Davis/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS, "Patil, Sanjay" <sanjay.patil@sap.com> RE: [ws-rx] Gil's proposal for i021Link
Umit,
The technical problem is as I outlined in my previous note. It requires that the RMS have access
to the WSDL. I don't believe that will always be the case. Thus, it is a problem.
Cheers,
Christopher Ferris
STSM, Emerging e-business Industry Architecture
email: chrisfer@us.ibm.com
blog: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/dw_blog.jspa?blog=440
phone: +1 508 377 9295
"Yalcinalp, Umit" <umit.yalcinalp@sap.com> wrote on 02/03/2006 12:49:26 PM:
> Chris,
>
> For clarification, here is all I care about: What is the real
> technical difficulty that we will face if we were to introduce
> message level subject IN ADDITION TO endpoint + the constraints that
> I have proposed.
>
> Apart from keeping the existing semantics, could you elaborate the
> technical problems that you see (wrt to the policy processing)
> please? I know the tendency of the keeping the existing setting, etc.
>
> IBM and SAP are co-spec leads of WS-Policy soon to be submitted to
> w3c. I have a personal interest as one of the authors of WS-Policy
> spec about the tecnical details of this problem (from your end) and
> what we will end up endlessly in the wg going forward. I also have a
> personal interest due to what we need to cover for JSR 265 perspective.
>
> Could you elaborate on the technical problem instead of appearingly
> dismissing it publicly? Whatever it is, we will have to deal with it
> in WS-Policy framework as well.
>
> Thank in advance,
>
> --umit
>
>
> From: Christopher B Ferris [mailto:chrisfer@us.ibm.com]
> Sent: Friday, Feb 03, 2006 4:27 AM
> To: ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: RE: [ws-rx] Gil's proposal for i021
>
> Umit,
>
> Both message- and operation-level subject requires that the RMS have
> knowledge of the WSDL, for starters, and that it parse each message to match
> it to the WSDL message/operation to determine whether, or not, to apply RM.
>
> While some future, sooper-dooper all-knowing, all-singing-and-dancing
> policy engine of the future might be capable of this, I am no longer
> of the opinion that we need to be overly concerned about this level of
> granularity at present.
>
> I would much prefer that we get the simple semantic of on/off at the
> endpoint level addressed, as that is far more likely to be consistent
> with implementations that deploy over the next two years or so and will
> likely satisfy a significant majority of use cases.
>
> It troubles me deeply that we are expending so much of the TC's energies
> around this and related issues. Not only that, but it seems to me that
> as soon as we hit a policy-related issue, we go round and round in circles and
> rarely come to any consensus agreement on closure. Why am I not surprised?
>
> Let me turn the question around (again) and ask the members of the
> TC, how many
> of the implementations people are working on (and one would hope
> that there are implementations in development as we speak :-) are prepared to
> be able to address message- and/or operation-level policy in the
> application of
> RM?
>
> Cheers,
>
> Christopher Ferris
> STSM, Emerging e-business Industry Architecture
> email: chrisfer@us.ibm.com
> blog: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/dw_blog.jspa?blog=440
> phone: +1 508 377 9295
>
> "Yalcinalp, Umit" <umit.yalcinalp@sap.com> wrote on 02/02/2006 09:16:36 PM:
>
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Marc Goodner [mailto:mgoodner@microsoft.com]
> > > Sent: Thursday, Feb 02, 2006 12:49 PM
> > > To: Anish Karmarkar
> > > Cc: Gilbert Pilz; Patil, Sanjay; ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
> > > Subject: RE: [ws-rx] Gil's proposal for i021
> > >
> > > I don't understand how you reached your interpretation of the text I
> > > quoted.
> > >
> > > Message level subject goes to far IMO. I understand we're
> > > talking about
> > > reliable messaging, but why must it match the flexibility of WSDL in
> > > terms of how it is applied? I can't envision any practical application
> > > to tweek it by individual messages on the endpoint.
> > >
> > > So going to message level seems like it would open a lot of other
> > > potential problems in terms of conditions we would need to
> > > clarify. What
> > > is the benefit of making it that flexible? Who are we
> > > helping? What are
> > > we enabling? I just don't see it.
> > >
> >
> > Let me turn the question around.
> >
> > -- why do you think the message level subject vs operation subject is
> > harmful in solving particular case?
> >
> > -- Can you quantify the problems that you see with message policy
> > subject? Please be specific.
> >
> > I am not advocating free for all Message policy subject, but it seems to
> > me that we need to do BOTH of the following to solve this problem:
> >
> > (a) Allow message level subject for attachment (Granularity)
> >
> > (b) Allow the attachment to appear ONLY within the context of inbound
> > messages in a binding/operation/message in a WSDL document in the wsrmp
> > text (Scoping to inbound messages in WSDL).
> >
> > This would solve i021 and it will be consistent with WS-Policy
> > Attachment. Further this does not get into the problem of what happens
> > to outbound messages. Operation level subject unfortunately covers both
> > inbound and outbound messages in an exchange and I am very weary of
> > that.
> >
> > IMO, stating that simply the assertion applies to inbound messages
> > without using the message Policy Subject would be a mistake. However,
> > message Policy subject on its own is an overkill too. Therefore, we need
> > to combine both requirements and state them in conjunction with each
> > other.
> >
> > > Marc Goodner
> > > Technical Diplomat
> > > Microsoft Corporation
> > > Tel: (425) 703-1903
> > > Blog: http://spaces.msn.com/mrgoodner/
> > >
> >
> > I don't see this particular option as one of the proposals and I would
> > like to put it on the table.
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> > --umit
> >
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Anish Karmarkar [mailto:Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com]
> > > Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2006 12:05 PM
> > > To: Marc Goodner
> > > Cc: Gilbert Pilz; Patil, Sanjay; ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
> > > Subject: Re: [ws-rx] Gil's proposal for i021
> > >
> > > Marc Goodner wrote:
> > > > Just expanding on the subject level, from section 4.1.2 on Endpoint
> > > > Policy Subject in WS-PolicyAttachment [1]:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > "An Endpoint Policy Subject applies to behaviours
> > > associated with an
> > > > entire endpoint of
> > > >
> > > > the service, irrespective of any message exchange made."
> > > >
> > >
> > > Not a policy expert, but my interpretation is that I don't think that
> > > precludes us from defining assertions that apply to only in
> > > messages or
> > > out-message. WS-PolicyAttachment framework defines a
> > > framework, but the
> > > assertion definer defines the semantics of the assertion. I.e., it
> > > should be ok to say that my BAZ assertion means that only in-bound
> > > messages are reliable -- and that applies to the entire endpoint
> > > (irrespective of the message exchanges or operations).
> > >
> > > Having said that. I don't think Gil's proposal goes far
> > > enough. Yes, it
> > > works quite well for the most common case (one-way,
> > > request-response).
> > > But when we go to WSDL 2.0, this looks rather short-sighted.
> > > It seems to
> > >
> > > me that the policy assertion subject should be 'message' -- which
> > > provides the granularity that provides the most flexibility.
> > > After all
> > > we are talking about reliable messaging.
> > >
> > > My $.02
> > >
> > > -Anish
> > > --
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > To me that seems to say we can't declare that it doesn't apply to
> > > > inbound or outbound messages that are part of the endpoint.
> > > If that is
> > >
> > > > what you want you would use operation level subject. I still think
> > > > endpoint subject is what you would almost always want, but
> > > we've been
> > > > talking about this long enough that I can see a case for operation.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 1 http://specs.xmlsoap.org/ws/2004/09/policy/ws-policyattachment.pdf
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Marc Goodner
> > > >
> > > > Technical Diplomat
> > > >
> > > > Microsoft Corporation
> > > >
> > > > Tel: (425) 703-1903
> > > >
> > > > Blog: http://spaces.msn.com/mrgoodner/
> > > >
> > > >
> > > --------------------------------------------------------------
> > > ----------
> > > >
> > > > *From:* Gilbert Pilz [mailto:Gilbert.Pilz@bea.com]
> > > > *Sent:* Wednesday, February 01, 2006 2:35 PM
> > > > *To:* Marc Goodner; Patil, Sanjay; ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
> > > > *Subject:* RE: [ws-rx] Gil's proposal for i021
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Comments in line . . .
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > - gp
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > --------------------------------------------------------------
> > > ----------
> > > >
> > > > *From:* Marc Goodner [mailto:mgoodner@microsoft.com]
> > > > *Sent:* Wednesday, February 01, 2006 1:10 PM
> > > > *To:* Patil, Sanjay; Gilbert Pilz; ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
> > > > *Subject:* RE: [ws-rx] Gil's proposal for i021
> > > >
> > > > Two immediate concerns I have here.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > One, I don't think it is right to say the AS and AD have to use
> > > RM.
> > > > It is the RMS and RMD that use RM so I think the
> > > original text is
> > > > correct. I also don't see how this relates to the multiple
> > > endpoints
> > > > via one RMS/RMD as you say below. In that case isn't
> > > the original
> > > > text still more accurate? Still either way this is probably
> > > > splitting hairs, it doesn't change that the assertion
> > > is there or
> > > > what it means.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > The RMS and RMD don't **use** RM they **implement** RM. They are
> > > the
> > > > things that implement the protocol described in the WS-RM spec.
> > > When
> > > > you are talking about describing policy in something
> > > like WSDL you
> > > > are indicating if/how you will make use of the
> > > facilities that the
> > > > RMS and RMD provide.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Two, I don't think even with two different assertions we can
> > > define
> > > > them to apply just to inbound or outbound messages. I'm fairly
> > > > certain that WSDL 1.1 and WS-PolicyAttachment prevent that
> > > scoping.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I'm not sure I understand why this would be the case. Can you
> > > expand?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Marc Goodner
> > > >
> > > > Technical Diplomat
> > > >
> > > > Microsoft Corporation
> > > >
> > > > Tel: (425) 703-1903
> > > >
> > > > Blog: http://spaces.msn.com/mrgoodner/
> > > >
> > > >
> > > --------------------------------------------------------------
> > > ----------
> > > >
> > > > *From:* Patil, Sanjay [mailto:sanjay.patil@sap.com]
> > > > *Sent:* Wednesday, February 01, 2006 7:27 AM
> > > > *To:* Gilbert Pilz; ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
> > > > *Subject:* [ws-rx] Gil's proposal for i021
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Thanks to Gil for making a concrete proposal. Hopefully
> > > this leads
> > > > to a discussion on the list.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I have changed the subject line to indicate the issue number. I
> > > > think folks have better memory of issue numbers than AI
> > > numbers.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > >
> > > > Sanjay
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > --------------------------------------------------------------
> > > ----------
> > > >
> > > > *From:* Gilbert Pilz [mailto:Gilbert.Pilz@bea.com]
> > > > *Sent:* Tuesday, Jan 31, 2006 23:01 PM
> > > > *To:* ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
> > > > *Subject:* [ws-rx] RE: Action Item #0078
> > > >
> > > > In light of the (pending) resolutions to i086 and i087 it
> > > seemed
> > > > simpler to present my proposal in the form of
> > > complete drafts
> > > of
> > > > the WS-RM Policy specification. Attached are two PDF
> > > documents.
> > > > One is a clean version of what the WS-RM Policy spec would
> > > look
> > > > like with my proposed changes. The other contains
> > > change bars
> > > > between my proposal and the current editors draft of WS-RM
> > > > Policy (cd-02 with Marc's clean ups applied).
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > You will note that my proposal includes the proposed
> > > resolutions
> > > > to i086 and i087. There was no simple way to
> > > present my ideas
> > > > without doing this.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > You may also note that I have changed line 93 from:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > "The RM policy assertion indicates that the RM Source and RM
> > > > Destination MUST use WS-ReliableMessaging [WS-RM
> > > > <outbind://153/#WSRM>] to ensure reliable delivery of
> > > messages."
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > to:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > "In general a RM policy assertion indicates that the
> > > Application
> > > > Source and Application Destination MUST use
> > > WS-ReliableMessaging
> > > > [WS-RM <outbind://153/#WSRM>] to ensure reliable delivery of
> > > > messages".
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I did this because I think that policy assertions
> > > have nothing
> > > > to do with sequences or the entities that maintain
> > > them (i.e.
> > > > the RMS and RMD) except that they indicate that some,
> > > > unspecified sequence may or must be used to ensure the
> > > delivery
> > > > of inbound or outbound messages. I think this confusion over
> > > > endpoints (and the policies attached to those endpoints) and
> > > > sequences lay at the heart of our difficulties with the idea
> > > of
> > > > multiple endpoints with different policies sharing the same
> > > > sequence. This change may be considered by some to be the
> > > > resolution to a separate issue. If anyone has any objections
> > > > I'll back it out and go through the process of raising a
> > > > separate issue and making a separate proposal to address it.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > - gp
> > > >
> > >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]