RE: [ws-rx] NEW ISSUE: What is the effective policy when RM policy assertion is present at multiple places?

["Marc Goodner" <mgoodner@microsoft.com>]

Anish, the text you quote as being in the spec is from the resolution to
issue 21 [1, 2], it is not however in CD3 which is what most of us have
to look at right now. Your proposed resolution says to make it clear how
wsp:Optional is handled when the assertion is attached at more than one
WSDL construct. We discussed this extensively in resolving issue 21 and
I thought it was reflected in the resolution the TC accepted. I agree it
is implied but not clarified by the text you quote, but isn't it
clarified by the text describing the requirements when attaching the
assertion to the input/output/fault?

1 Issue 21 
http://docs.oasis-open.org/ws-rx/issues/ReliableMessagingIssues.xml#i021

2 Issue 21 resolution (+ additional line notes in issue list)
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ws-rx/200603/msg00188.html 

Marc Goodner
Technical Diplomat
Microsoft Corporation
Tel: (425) 703-1903
Blog: http://spaces.msn.com/mrgoodner/ 


-----Original Message-----
From: Anish Karmarkar [mailto:Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2006 11:20 PM
To: wsrx
Subject: [ws-rx] NEW ISSUE: What is the effective policy when RM policy
assertion is present at multiple places?

Title: What is the effective policy when RM policy assertion is present 
at multiple places?

Description:

WSRMP spec currently contains the following text:

"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."

Firstly, we do not define any RM policy assertion parameters, so I'm not

sure what the above means. But it does give the impression that:
RM-policy-assertion(port) trumps RM-policy-assertion(binding) which in 
turn trumps RM-policy-assertion(message).

Given that we do not define any parameters the above statement doesn't 
mean anything expect in the context of wsp:Optional. Unless WS-Policy 
and friends define how wsp:Optional is dealt with in such cases, I 
believe we should define how things work in the realm of WSRM.
Specifically:

If wsdl:binding/wsdl:operation/wsdl:input (or wsdl:output or wsdl:fault)

has <wsrmp:RMAssertion wsp:Optional='false'/> and wsdl:binding has 
<wsrmp:RMAssertion wsp:Optional='true'/> then the message-level 
assertion should trump the binding-level assertion (i.e. RM is mandatory

for that message). The message-level assertion is more specific and that

is the one that should be used (for that message) than the binding-level

assertion.

Similarly,

If wsdl:binding has <wsrmp:RMAssertion wsp:Optional='false'/> and 
wsdl:service/wsdl:port has <wsrmp:RMAssertion wsp:Optional='true'/> then

the binding-level assertion should trump the port-level assertion (i.e. 
RM is still mandatory for that binding). The binding-level assertion is 
a contract that must be adhered to by any port that uses it (one could 
argue that the assertion at the port is in violation of the binding 
contract).


Justification:

See above.

Target: wsrm policy

Proposal:

Include language in the spec that makes it clear how wsp:Optional is 
handled when RM assertion is present at more than one WSDL constructs.