[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [ws-rx] i021 proposal (updated)
Thanks, Sanjay! Your proposed text looks good to me. All the best, Ashok > -----Original Message----- > From: Patil, Sanjay [mailto:sanjay.patil@sap.com] > Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2006 7:01 PM > To: Marc Goodner; Paul Fremantle > Cc: wsrx > Subject: RE: [ws-rx] i021 proposal (updated) > > > I am fine with Paul's suggested way of addressing my > concerns. I think this proposal should be on the table as a > candidate for resolving i021 on tomorrow's call. I am taking > the liberty (due to time zone difference with PaulF) to > update the proposal as per his response just to facilitate > easier deliberation by the TC members ... > > I would also propose to -- a> define rules for handling the > case where RM policy assertions are attached to multiple > subjects in the same WSDL, and b> clarify (or even remove) > the last paragraph related to how EPR contained RM assertions > interact with WSDL attached RM assertions. I wouldn't ask for > another round of proposal for resolving these aspects, and > would rather let our able team of editors apply the necessary > changes (assuming the TC blesses the proposal and agrees on the > updates!) ... > > -- Sanjay > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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. > > 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). > > 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. > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Marc Goodner [mailto:mgoodner@microsoft.com] > > Sent: Wednesday, Feb 15, 2006 17:16 PM > > To: Paul Fremantle; Patil, Sanjay > > Cc: wsrx > > 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]