> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ashok Malhotra [mailto:]
> Sent: Thursday, Sep 15, 2005 5:54 AM
> To: Yalcinalp, Umit;
> Subject: RE: [ws-rx] Issue i024
>
> Hi Umit:
> First we need to understand the possible uses of the assertion.
> After we do that we can propose a header -- that's the easy part!
>
> All the best, Ashok
Yes, that is why I was trying to understand your second suggestion which
was not answered by your email. I think you are making some assumptions
with respect to scoping of the assertions which I am trying to uncover.
Could you clarify in which situations you envision RMD side assertions
needs to communicate RMS in a separate protocol element and whether that
protocol element must be defined by this specification? Typically, the
endpoint would already have the assertion associated (WSDL/Attachment)
which is already available. The scope is the endpoint. I presume you are
thinking of different scoping requirement here.
Thanks,
--umit
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Yalcinalp, Umit [mailto:]
> > Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2005 2:50 PM
> > To: ;
> > Subject: RE: [ws-rx] Issue i024
> >
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Ashok Malhotra [mailto:]
> > > Sent: Wednesday, Sep 14, 2005 12:44 PM
> > > To:
> > > Subject: [ws-rx] Issue i024
> > >
> > > 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.
> >
> > I thought the idea was to propose the schema element for this
> > and its content so we can discuss... If we were to allow a
> > header, I would like to see what it contains, etc.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > 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.
> >
> > Perhaps I am missing sth. Why do we need to do that in the protocol?
> > Since this would be associated with a WSDL (presumably) as an
> > attachment or separate file, wouldn't the RM assertion at the
> > RMD side be known already.
> >
> > >
> > > All the best, Ashok
> > >
> > >
> >
> > --umit
> >
> >
>
>
