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


Title: i021 Proposal
 
First of all, I hate to call the proposal as my proposal because it is really building upon ideas of several TC members :)
 
On your point about clarifying the message level applicability when EPS is involved, I personally prefer that we do not duplicate (and risk conflicting with) the semantics described (should I say alluded to) in the policy framework. However, I am open to suggestions for adding clarification text.
 
-- Sanjay


From: Ashok Malhotra [mailto:ashok.malhotra@oracle.com]
Sent: Wednesday, Feb 22, 2006 16:38 PM
To: Patil, Sanjay; wsrx
Subject: RE: [ws-rx] i021 Proposal

Hi Sanjay:
In this proposal, unlike your previous one, you do not specify that if the RM assertion is applied
to a WSDL message definition it applies to that message alone and if it is applied to a port or a binding
it applies to all messages under that port/binding definition.
 
You probably did that to avoid duplication, but WS-PolicyAttachment is famously vague about this and
it would be better to spell it out clearly in the WS-RX spec.

All the best, Ashok

 


From: Patil, Sanjay [mailto:sanjay.patil@sap.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2006 12:33 PM
To: wsrx
Subject: [ws-rx] i021 Proposal


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]:

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: 

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:

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.

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.




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