Re: [ws-rx] i021 Proposal

[Anish Karmarkar <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com>]

I don't understand why we would do that.
MPS is meant to attach policies with the message. That is it, nothing 
more. Your requirement that this should require that the binding/port 
support RM for all messages (in/out/fault) for that port/binding does 
not provide the granularity that is needed.

For example, if an endpoint/port has an in-out operation it should be 
able to assert that RM is supported/required on the in message and not 
make any stmt about the out message or other message in other operations 
supported at that port/endpoint/portType.

Instead, I quite like Sanjay's proposal.

-Anish
--

Christopher B Ferris wrote:
> 
> 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.