Proposal for RM Policy assertions

["Ashok Malhotra" <ashok.malhotra@oracle.com>]

Based on our discussions last week in which we decided that it would be desirable to remove the dependence of the RM policy assertions on one another, here is a proposal that attempts to accomplish this.

The RM assertion comes in 3 different flavors:

1. <wsrmp:RMAssertion [wsp:Optional="true"]? ... />

2. <wsrmp:RMAssertion [wsp:Optional="true"]? ... >
      <wsp:Policy>
                <wsrmp:SequenceSTR />
      </wsp:Policy>
   </wsrmp:RMAssertion>

3. <wsp:Policy>
  <wsp:ExactlyOne>
    <wsp:All>
      <wsrm:RMAssertion [wsp:Optional="true"]? ...>
       <wsp:Policy>
        <wsrmp:SequenceTransportSecurity  />
       <wsp:Policy>
      </wsrm:RMAssertion>
      <sp:TransportBinding ...>
        ...
      </sp:TransportBinding>
    </wsp:All>
  </wsp:ExactlyOne>
</wsp:Policy>

The third form says that an endpoint may have RM as an option but always requires HTTPS to be used. All the SequenceTransportSecurity assertion indicates is that RM's rules for protecting the sequence over TLS are followed.

If we agree on these 3 assertions, the text in sections 2.5.1 and 2.5.2 would need to be changed to reflect assertion 2 and 3 above.  See attached Word Document.

  


All the best, Ashok

Suggested Changes to RM Policy.doc