Subject: Re: [ws-rx] i021 Proposal
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: email@example.com > blog: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/dw_blog.jspa?blog=440 > phone: +1 508 377 9295 > > "Patil, Sanjay" <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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:email@example.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:firstname.lastname@example.org] > > 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.