RE: [ws-rx] NEW ISSUE: Issue 21 resolution text contains language about 'parameters' which don't exist

["Patil, Sanjay" <sanjay.patil@sap.com>]

AFAICT, at the time when the parameter overriding related text was
created as part of the i021 resolution, we hadn't nuked all the RM
Assertion parameters.

As far as the applicability of this text to the future RM policy
extensions (that introduce parameters) is concerned, I think we should
leave it up to the extension authors how they want to define the
parameter overriding rules. Makes sense?

-- Sanjay

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Marc Goodner [mailto:mgoodner@microsoft.com] 
> Sent: Thursday, Apr 20, 2006 16:11 PM
> To: Anish Karmarkar; wsrx
> Subject: RE: [ws-rx] NEW ISSUE: Issue 21 resolution text 
> contains language about 'parameters' which don't exist
> 
> Wouldn't this text apply if someone took advantage of the 
> extensibility
> in the assertion to add their own parameters? I recall this being
> discussed during the development of this proposal and I 
> thought that was
> why the text on the parameters was retained.
> 
> 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: Thursday, April 20, 2006 1:52 PM
> To: wsrx
> Subject: [ws-rx] NEW ISSUE: Issue 21 resolution text contains language
> about 'parameters' which don't exist
> 
> Per my AI on the call today, here is the new issue.
> 
> -Anish
> --
> 
> Title: Issue 21 resolution text contains language about 'parameters' 
> which don't exist
> 
> Description:
> 
> Issue 21 resolution text 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."
> 
> The WSRMP spec does not define any 'parameters', therefore these 
> statements don't mean anything and are possibly misleading (may lead 
> reader to believe something about policy merges that may or 
> may not be 
> true).
> 
> Justification:
> 
> See above.
> 
> Target: WSRM policy
> 
> Proposal:
> 
> Remove the two offending statements mentioned above.
> 
> 
> 
> 
>