[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [ws-rx] i021 proposal
So where are we with this proposal now? Is the below text in, out? Does it need to be revised in light of discussion to date? What is the expectation for this issue on the call tomorrow? Discussion to figure out the correct direction to refine this proposal seems about right to me. Marc Goodner Technical Diplomat Microsoft Corporation Tel: (425) 703-1903 Blog: http://spaces.msn.com/mrgoodner/ -----Original Message----- From: Paul Fremantle [mailto:paul@wso2.com] Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2006 3:04 AM To: Patil, Sanjay Cc: wsrx Subject: Re: [ws-rx] i021 proposal Sanjay You are right. The proposal isn't yet fully clear on the meaning of attaching WS-RM to a message or operation. How about if the following text was added, before the EPR text. Attaching the RM assertion to a specific wsdl:input, wsdl:output, or wsdl:fault construct indicates that the RM protocol MUST be used when sending that message (or MAY if the assertion is marked optional). Attaching the RM assertion to a specific wsdl:operation construct indicates that the RM protocol MUST be used for all messages (whether input, output or fault) related to the operation(or MAY if the assertion is marked optional). Attaching the RM assertion to a specific wsdl:binding construct indicates that the RM protocol MUST be used for all messages (whether input, output or fault) related to the binding (or MAY if the assertion is marked optional). Attaching the RM assertion to a specific wsdl:port construct indicates that the RM protocol MUST be used for all messages (whether input, output or fault) related to the port (or MAY if the assertion is marked optional). Attaching the RM assertion to a specific wsdl:service construct indicates that the RM protocol MUST be used for all messages (whether input, output or fault) related to the service (or MAY if the assertion is marked optional). You are also right about the EPR. I would recommend making the EPR policy override the WSDL policy, but once again I think this is an issue with the overall WS-Policy Framework (i.e. a general Policy issue not a specific RX issue). Thanks for your comments, Paul Patil, Sanjay wrote: > Comments inline ... > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Paul Fremantle [mailto:paul@wso2.com] >> Sent: Thursday, Feb 09, 2006 1:43 AM >> To: wsrx >> Subject: [ws-rx] i021 proposal >> >> Proposal regarding issue 021. I'm not quite sure this is >> right yet, so I >> would appreciate feedback from the Policy experts. >> >> Based on CDII >> >> Delete 142-154 section 2.3 and replace with. >> >> 2.3 Assertion Attachment >> >> The RM assertion can have Service, Endpoint, Operation or Message >> Endpoint Policy Subjects [WS-PolicyAttachment]. >> >> WS-PolicyAttachment [WS-PolicyAttachment] defines both abstract and >> concrete attachment points in WSDL [WSDL1.1]. Because the RM policy >> assertion specifies a concrete behaviour, it MUST NOT be attached to >> abstract constructs: >> >> * wsdl:portType >> * wsdl:portType/wsdl:operation >> * wsdl:portType/wsdl:operation/wsdl:input >> * wsdl:portType/wsdl:operation/wsdl:output >> * wsdl:portType/wsdl:operation/wsdl:fault >> * wsdl:message >> >> The RM policy assertion MAY be attached to the following constructs >> * wsdl:service >> * wsdl:port >> * wsdl:binding. >> * wsdl:binding/wsdl:operation >> * wsdl:binding/wsdl:operation/wsdl:input >> * wsdl:binding/wsdl:operation/wsdl:output >> * wsdl:binding/wsdl:operation/wsdl:fault >> >> If the RM assertion is attached to the wsdl:service >> construct, it MUST >> be considered to apply to all the wsdl:port's referenced in >> the binding. >> If the RM assertion is attached to the wsdl:port construct, >> it MUST be >> considered to apply to all the wsdl:binding's referenced in the port. >> If the RM assertion is attached to the wsdl:binding >> construct, it MUST >> be considered to apply to all the wsdl:operation's referenced in the >> binding. >> If the RM assertion is attached to the wsdl:operation >> construct, it MUST >> be considered to apply to all the wsdl:input's, wsdl:output's and >> wsdl:fault's referenced in the operation. >> > It seems like your proposal allows for attachment of RM assertion at the > message level. In that case, wouldn't you also want to specify the > behavior when the RM assertion is directly attached to the wsdl:input, > wsdl:output or wsdl:fault constructs? Or is that semantic somehow > derived from the above? I think the main question of the issue i021 is > whether and how does RM assertion apply to the outbound (I hate this > term) messages of an endpoint, and I don't see a clear answer to that > question in this proposal. > > There should also be statements for handling the case where RM > assertions are attached to multiple subjects within the same scope. > > >> WS-Addressing allows for policy assertions to be included within an >> EndpointReference. Per section 2.2 above, the presence of this >> policy assertion in an EPR specifies the level of support for >> WS-ReliableMessaging offered by that endpoint. >> > Since the previous text regarding the WSDL attachment of RM assertion > covers the behavior of outbound messages also, there may possibly be > conflicts when both the techniques of associating policies (WSDL > attachment and EPR inclusion) are used. > > -- Sanjay > > >> Paul >> >> -- >> >> Paul Fremantle >> VP/Technology, WSO2 and OASIS WS-RX TC Co-chair >> >> http://bloglines.com/blog/paulfremantle >> paul@wso2.com >> >> "Oxygenating the Web Service Platform", www.wso2.com >> >> >> -- Paul Fremantle VP/Technology, WSO2 and OASIS WS-RX TC Co-chair http://bloglines.com/blog/paulfremantle paul@wso2.com "Oxygenating the Web Service Platform", www.wso2.com
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]