What's the relationship between this
issue and issues 6, 9? They seem very similar - almost like 6 and
9 are a subset of 24. Would it make sense to try to find a single/common
solution that covers all?
thanks,
-Doug
Ashok Malhotra <> wrote
on 09/14/2005 03:43:40 PM:
> This is in response to Sanjay's note asking for a proposal for issue
i024.
> In this case, though, what we are asking for may be a clarification
and not a change.
>
> The WS-RM Policy spec defines a RM assertion. It also specifies
how this assertion
> may be attached to WSDL. What is does not specify is the motivation
behind the
> assertion, how it is used and the messages it applies to. We
would like this clarified.
>
> It is clear that the RM assertion is an 'informational assertion'
in that it is a
> property of the sequence and not a property of the messages in the
sequence. As such,
> it does not make sense for each message to include this information.
>
> Second, policy information is meant to be conveyed by one party in
a conversation to
> the other. In this case, the assertion seems to specify implementation
parameters
> that may be private to the RMS or the RMD. If so, it does not
need to be part of the
> specification.
>
> If, indeed, the RM assertion is to be conveyed from the RMS to the
RMD it can be
> done as a header in the CreateSequence message. The RMD can
respond with a header
> in the CreateSequenceResponse by agreeing, disagreeing or making a
counter proposal.
>
> If the RM assertion has to be conveyed from the RMD to the RMS, this
has to be done
> before the CreateSequence message and requires a new protocol element.
>
> All the best, Ashok
>
