[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [ws-rx] i021 Proposal
In general I quite like this proposal. Two comments about 'parameters' below. -Anish -- Patil, Sanjay wrote: > > Here is an updated proposal for resolving the long pending issue i021. > The key difference in comparison to what exists in the WS-RM Policy > specification today is that -- the proposal allows Message Policy > Subject (in addition to the Endpoint Policy Subject) for the RM Policy > assertion. > > I would also like to bring to your notice that this proposal: > -- Avoids text that would repeat the semantics already addressed in > WS-PolicyAttachment, for example, an Endpoint Policy Subject applies to > behaviors associated with all the message exchanges of the endpoint, and > applies to aspects of both communicating with as well as instantiating > the endpoint. So the proposal would seem a bit short and dry to some people! > > -- Does not include any recommendations for which wsdl elements (among > those that are allowed by the proposal - wsdl:port Vs. wsdl:binding > Vs.binding level messages) are more appropriate for policy attachment, > since this may simply be a matter of best practices and there are no > strong technical reasons for the specification to promote one approach > over another, IMO. > > -- Does not include any text related to whether and how EPR contained > policies may interact with the WSDL attached policies, since I couldn't > arrive at any precise and useful (normative) text in this regard. > > Please try to send in your comments before the conf-call tomorrow (2/23)! > -- Sanjay > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Replace the entire content of section 2.3 (Assertion Attachment) in the > WS-RM Policy specification with the following: > > The RM policy assertion is allowed to have the following Policy Subjects > [WS-PolicyAttachment]: > > o Endpoint Policy Subject > o Message Policy Subject > > WS-PolicyAttachment defines a set of WSDL/1.1 [WSDL 1.1] policy > attachment points for each of the above Policy Subjects. Since an RM > policy assertion specifies a concrete behavior, it MUST NOT be attached > to the abstract WSDL policy attachment points. > > The following is the list of WSDL/1.1 elements whose scope contains the > Policy Subjects allowed for an RM policy assertion but which MUST > NOT have RM policy assertions attached: > > o wsdl:message > o wsdl:portType/wsdl:operation/wsdl:input > o wsdl:portType/wsdl:operation/wsdl:output > o wsdl:portType/wsdl:operation/wsdl:fault > o wsdl:portType > > The following is the list of WSDL/1.1 elements whose scope contains the > Policy Subjects allowed for an RM policy assertion and which MAY have RM > policy assertions attached: > > o wsdl:port > o wsdl:binding > o wsdl:binding/wsdl:operation/wsdl:input > o wsdl:binding/wsdl:operation/wsdl:output > o wsdl:binding/wsdl:operation/wsdl:fault > > If the RM policy assertion appears in a policy expression attached to a > wsdl:binding as well as to the individual wsdl:binding level message > definitions(wsdl:binding/wsdl:operation/wsdl:input, > wsdl:binding/wsdl:operation/wsdl:output, > wsdl:binding/wsdl:operation/wsdl:fault), the parameters in the former > MUST be used and the latter ignored. > Since we have gotten rid of all the parameters in WSRMP, what does the above sentence mean? I suggest that we get rid the sentence. Since there aren't any parameters, there is no conflict between RM assertions being placed at various WSDL attachment points. > If the RM policy assertion appears in a policy expression attached to a > wsdl:port as well as to the other allowed WSDL/1.1 elements, the > parameters in the former MUST be used and the latter ignored. > same as above. >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]