ooops... Tony: you did post them. Thanks.
From: Luc Clement
[mailto:]
Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2005
22:45
To: von Riegen, Claus; Rogers, Tony;
Subject: RE: [uddi-spec] Agenda -
Tuesday, 18 October 2005, 03:30pm to 05:00pm US ET
We agree on this of course. Nonetheless the use case
presented by the WSDL is one we need to have a position on
and address.
Tony: could you post the minutes - I'd like to
see what was discussed.
From: von Riegen, Claus
[mailto:]
Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2005
14:48
To: Luc Clement; Rogers, Tony;
Subject: AW: [uddi-spec] Agenda -
Tuesday, 18 October 2005, 03:30pm to 05:00pm US ET
Of course, WS-PolicyAttachment does not provide a
mechanism to query UDDI for WSDL operations and/or messages associated with
a given policy expression. This is because the UDDI data model was
not designed to cover all details of a WSDL portType and/or WSDL
binding rather than a limitation of WS-PolicyAttachment section
5
Claus
Von: Luc Clement
[mailto:]
Gesendet: Dienstag, 18. Oktober
2005 14:14
An: Rogers, Tony;
Betreff: RE: [uddi-spec] Agenda -
Tuesday, 18 October 2005, 03:30pm to 05:00pm US ET
Tony:
Re: 6.1
WS-PolicyAttachment
issue
Luc has raised an issue which he believes is not addressed by
WS-PolicyAttachment in its current form.
TC to discuss, and decide on a course of action
Unfortunately I won't be on the call
today. I would like to ensure that it is understood that the reason that I
sent the wsdl was to use it as a source of use cases; my goal was not to poke
holes at WS-PolicyAttachment. I do believe that this demonstrates
limitations of Section 5 of WS-PolicyAttachment 2004 and most likely our own
WSDL-UDDI 2.0.2 mapping (depending on how we approach policy with the use case I
present). To restate my email [1]:
What
this WSDL does is simply demonstrating
is the need to:
identify
whether a policy is a capability or a constraint; there are some that would
consider configuration policy (not a view that I hold). To my way of thinking,
one's capability is another's constraint. While the WSDL does not clearly put
this out as a consideration, we need to tackle this issue.
As you can
tell from the WSDL, policy constraints (confidentiality and integrity
constraints) and policy capability (use of x509v3 token - you might not agree
on whether capability or constraint - so be it - not that important at this
point other than to clearly call out the need to understand both cases) need
to be expressed not only on the access point (i.e. the uddi:bindingTemplate)
but at the operation level and in this specific case the message
level.
Does this
imply that we have to map operations and messages to the registry and update
the WSDL/UDDI mapping and update ws-policyattachment? No. We surely may have
to review the WSDL/UDDI mapping but I would not jump to the conclusion that
we must map ops and msgs simply to be able to tack on a policy
expression. I think what is required is the means to express on the
uddi:bindingTemplates constraints and capabilities that apply to its messages
and operations. We might convince ourselves that we have to reify operations
in the registry, but once you do that what would be the rationale for not
reifying the messages (and maybe we will need to) ... ok so I digress...
I think you know where I'm going with
this.
Luc
[1] http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/uddi-spec/200510/msg00007.html
From: Rogers, Tony [mailto:]
Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2005 05:54
To:
Subject: [uddi-spec] Agenda - Tuesday,
18 October 2005, 03:30pm to 05:00pm US ET
Attached please find the agenda for today's telephone conference.
Call details were e-mailed earlier.
Tony Rogers
