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


Patil, Sanjay wrote:
> You are right. Talking about parameters may not make much sense since we
> got rid of all of them. I think the text should be in terms of the RM
> Assertion itself, that is, which RM Assertion is in effect when it is
> attached to multiple WSDL elements. I can provide updated text before or
> during the call in this regard.

Why do we need that? RM assertion right now says whether RM is required 
or supported. There is no negative RM assertion (RM not support), so 
there is no potential conflict. If there is an RM assertion on a message 
and an RM assertion on a port, then that is fine -- the port assertion 
implies all messages (per policy attachment spec).

> 
> On a side note, we haven't disallowed extensibility of RM Assertion and
> in that regard, talking about parameters may make sense. 

Yes, but AFAIK, extensible elements/attributes are not parameters. They 
are just extensible elements/attributes.
As Gil had suggested some time back, I don't think we should say 
anything about extensibility. I would add that we should not restrict 
extensibility in this regard. The authors of extensibility may have 
various reasons (that we can't anticipate now) to not want to adhere to 
such restriction. There are issues around defining/using extensible 
points (didn't we add a sentence that points that out?) and authors of 
extensibility elements/attributes should define how things work for 
their extensibility point.

> But if we
> define the rules of resolution at the assertion level itself, the
> treatment of parameters will be implicit and need not be separately
> called for.
> 
> -- Sanjay
> 
>   
> 
> 
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Anish Karmarkar [mailto:Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com] 
>>Sent: Wednesday, Feb 22, 2006 16:38 PM
>>To: Patil, Sanjay
>>Cc: wsrx
>>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]