ws-rx message

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

From: "Yalcinalp, Umit" <umit.yalcinalp@sap.com>
To: "Christopher B Ferris" <chrisfer@us.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 19:14:39 -0800

Chris,

Thanks for the clarification.

I wonder why it is the case that some members of the tc do not want to allow the editors to change a comma. I have never been a tc/wg/xx that does not allow editors some leverage to be able to express the groups intention unless there is semantic ambiguity in a resolution. Typically in those cases, there are several editors and they are adult/trustworthy/professional enough to bring the issue back to the standards body if they can not implement the decision of the tc. Further, we have review processes to catch mistakes and problems.

I would have preferred that editors job was not really a cut-and-paste job. You do not need a skilled team to do that.

I fear that we may be making the sarcasm a reality with the consistent process. ;-)

Cheers,

--umit

From: Christopher B Ferris [mailto:chrisfer@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Thursday, Feb 16, 2006 5:34 PM
To: Yalcinalp, Umit
Cc: Marc Goodner; Paul Fremantle; Patil, Sanjay; wsrx
Subject: RE: [ws-rx] i021 proposal (updated)

Umit,

Apologies if the dripping sarcasm didn't come through... maybe I need a sarcasm alert emoticon:-)

I was making a point that it seemed a little unfair that for some proposals, we are not allowing the
editors to change a comma and for this rather contentious issue, we would not have a formal
line-numbered set of proposed changes and leave it to the editor's discretion?

Please do not take offense. I was only making a case for consistency of process.

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 02/16/2006 04:21:12 PM: > Chris,
>
> As one of the editors in this tc, I am not sure how to interpret > your comment and take it with sarcasm or literally...
>
> --umit
>
> > From: Christopher B Ferris [mailto:chrisfer@us.ibm.com] > Sent: Thursday, Feb 16, 2006 12:52 PM > To: Patil, Sanjay > Cc: Marc Goodner; Paul Fremantle; wsrx > Subject: RE: [ws-rx] i021 proposal (updated)
> > Given the amount of email traffic on this issue over the course of > the last week, I am not at all convinced > that we are close to resolving this. > > Also, to be honest, I have not been able to catch up completely on > my email due to travel > and an inability to get email connectivity for 1 1/2 days. I would > actually prefer that we not spend > an entire call discussing/arguing something that I do not yet > believe has general consensus > agreement as to even the high-level concepts of according message > policy subject. > > Also, given that the editor monkeys are not to be trusted even with > making grammatical changes, > I am also not comfortable in just making hand-wavy voice changes to > be addressed by the > editors, especially given that on other issues where there was even > less contention in the > discourse, there has been significant pushback to get a formal, > line-numbered set of changes > expressed in email for the TC to review before-hand. > > I don't understand why this issue would be accorded special > treatment, especially given the > fact that there remains (IMO) some significant disagreement amongst > the TC members. > > 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 > > "Patil, Sanjay" <sanjay.patil@sap.com> wrote on 02/16/2006 03:18:34 PM: > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > >