RE: [uddi-spec] Agenda - Tuesday, 18 October 2005, 03:30pm to 05:00pm US ET

According to the OASIS UDDI TC roster, T Jensen of HP is an observer, added 
to the group on 02/01/2003. The mailing address, , is the one on record for this 
person.

 

I can remove you from the UDDI Spec TC mailing list, or you can remove 
yourself - I would like confirmation, however.

 

Have you been receiving e-mails for the last two years from this mailing 
list?

 

Tony Rogers



co-chair, UDDI Spec TC

  
-----Original Message----- 
From: Jensen, Thomas 
  [mailto:] 
Sent: Wed 19-Oct-05 17:02 
To: 
  Luc Clement; von Riegen, Claus; Rogers, Tony;  
  
Cc: 
Subject: RE: [uddi-spec] Agenda - Tuesday, 18 
  October 2005, 03:30pm to 05:00pm US ET

  
Hi.

  
 

  
I don't know why, but I am receiving all your emails, 
  even they don't are my business.

  
 

  
I work by HP, PSG Category Management, in B鐽lingen in 
  Germany, and I would preciate, if you didn't send me more 
  emails.

  
 

  
Many thanks.

  
 

  
Thomas Jensen

  
HP B鐽lingen

  

  
  From: Luc Clement 
  [mailto:] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2005 
  06:16
To: Luc Clement; von Riegen, Claus; Rogers, Tony; 
  
Subject: RE: [uddi-spec] Agenda - 
  Tuesday, 18 October 2005, 03:30pm to 05:00pm US ET

  

  
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