Re: [ws-rx] i021 Proposal

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

Anish,

Then I would have to insist that it
be OPTIONAL.

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

Anish Karmarkar <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com>
wrote on 03/02/2006 01:24:14 PM:

> 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.