OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

ws-rx message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]


Subject: RE: [ws-rx] i021 proposal (updated)



The proposal has been out for review for about a week now (Paul posted
it on Feb 9th). The issue itself has been open for about 8 months now :)

My proposed changes are something that I believe we can discuss on the
call without requiring a line-numbered proposal.

I really suggest that we utilize today's call to discuss and resolve
this issue.  Marc, we can walk through the proposal again if that may
help you in understanding it better.

-- Sanjay

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Marc Goodner [mailto:mgoodner@microsoft.com] 
> Sent: Thursday, Feb 16, 2006 11:52 AM
> To: Patil, Sanjay; Paul Fremantle
> Cc: wsrx
> Subject: RE: [ws-rx] i021 proposal (updated)
> 
> I'm sorry, I might be able to agree to this proposal but I need more
> time to review this, particularly as you seem to suggest yourself that
> there are changes you want to apply to this proposal. There 
> was a lot of
> discussion on this issue this week and I expect there will be more on
> today's call. 
> 
> I simply can't digest that much information to make a call one way or
> the other yet. I think this is an important issue and would 
> prefer that
> we take the proper amount of time to close it properly. If forced I'm
> afraid I would have to vote against adopting anything on this today
> rather than making the wrong call or accepting something that is
> incomplete.
> 
> All of that said; I'm not opposed to what I'm seeing here. I just need
> more time to review it.
> 
> Marc Goodner
> Technical Diplomat
> Microsoft Corporation
> Tel: (425) 703-1903
> Blog: http://spaces.msn.com/mrgoodner/ 
> 
> 
> -----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]