RE: [ws-rx] i021 Proposal

[Christopher B Ferris <chrisfer@us.ibm.com>]

If we added the following, IBM could
support this proposal.

If an RM policy assertion is attached to any of:

• wsdl:binding/wsdl:operation/wsdl:input
• wsdl:binding/wsdl:operation/wsdl:output
• wsdl:binding/wsdl:operation/wsdl:fault

then
an RM policy assertion, specifying wsp:Optional=true MUST be attached to
the corresponding wsdl:binding or wsdl:port, indicating that the endpoint
supports WS-RM. Any messages, regardless of whether they have an attached
Message Policy Subject RM policy assertion, MAY be sent to that endpoint
using WS-RM. Additionally, the receiving endpoint MUST NOT reject any message
belonging to a Sequence, simply because there was no Message Policy Subject
RM policy assertion attached to that message.

Cheers,

Christopher Ferris
STSM, Software Group Standards Strategy
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 02/23/2006 12:02:39 AM:

>  
> 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]: 
> Endpoint Policy Subject 
> 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: 
> wsdl:message 
> wsdl:portType/wsdl:operation/wsdl:input 
> wsdl:portType/wsdl:operation/wsdl:output 
> wsdl:portType/wsdl:operation/wsdl:fault 
> 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:
> wsdl:port 
> wsdl:binding 
> wsdl:binding/wsdl:operation/wsdl:input 
> wsdl:binding/wsdl:operation/wsdl:output 
> 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.
> 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.