RE: [ws-rx] i021 Proposal

If we added the following, IBM could
support this proposal.

If an RM policy assertion is
attached to any of:

wsdl:binding/wsdl:operation/wsdl:input

wsdl:binding/wsdl:operation/wsdl:output

wsdl:binding/wsdl:operation/wsdl:faultthen
an RM policy assertion, specifying wsp:Optional=true MUST be attached to
the corresponding wsdl:binding or wsdl:port, indicating that the endpoint
supports WS-RM. Any messages, regardless of whether they have an attached
Message Policy Subject RM policy assertion, MAY be sent to that endpoint
using WS-RM. Additionally, the receiving endpoint MUST NOT reject any message
belonging to a Sequence, simply because there was no Message Policy Subject
RM policy assertion attached to that message.

Cheers,

Christopher Ferris

STSM, Software Group Standards Strategy

email: 

blog: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/dw_blog.jspa?blog=440

phone: +1 508 377 9295

"Patil, Sanjay" <>
wrote on 02/23/2006 12:02:39 AM:

>  

> First of all, I hate to call the proposal as
my proposal because it 

> is really building upon ideas of several TC members :)

>  

> On your point about clarifying the message level
applicability when 

> EPS is involved, I personally prefer that we do not duplicate (and

> risk conflicting with) the semantics described (should I say alluded

> to) in the policy framework. However, I am open to suggestions for

> adding clarification text.

>  

> -- Sanjay

> 

> From: Ashok Malhotra [mailto:] 

> Sent: Wednesday, Feb 22, 2006 16:38 PM

> To: Patil, Sanjay; wsrx

> Subject: RE: [ws-rx] i021 Proposal

> Hi Sanjay:

> In this proposal, unlike your previous one, you
do not specify that 

> if the RM assertion is applied

> to a WSDL message definition it applies to that
message alone and if

> it is applied to a port or a binding

> it applies to all messages under that port/binding
definition.

>  

> You probably did that to avoid duplication, but
WS-PolicyAttachment 

> is famously vague about this and

> it would be better to spell it out clearly in
the WS-RX spec.

> All the best, Ashok 

>  

> 

> From: Patil, Sanjay [mailto:] 

> Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2006 12:33 PM

> To: wsrx

> Subject: [ws-rx] i021 Proposal

> 

> Here is an updated proposal for resolving the long pending issue 

> i021. The key difference in comparison to what exists in the WS-RM

> Policy specification today is that -- the proposal allows Message

> Policy Subject (in addition to the Endpoint Policy Subject) for the

> RM Policy assertion.

> I would also like to bring to your notice that
this proposal: 

> -- Avoids text that would repeat the semantics already addressed in

> WS-PolicyAttachment, for example, an Endpoint Policy Subject applies

> to behaviors associated with all the message exchanges of the 

> endpoint, and applies to aspects of both communicating with as well

> as instantiating the endpoint. So the proposal would seem a bit 

> short and dry to some people!

> -- Does not include any recommendations for which
wsdl elements 

> (among those that are allowed by the proposal - wsdl:port Vs. wsdl:

> binding Vs.binding level messages) are more appropriate for policy

> attachment, since this may simply be a matter of best practices and

> there are no strong technical reasons for the specification to 

> promote one approach over another, IMO.

> -- Does not include any text related to whether
and how EPR 

> contained policies may interact with the WSDL attached policies, 

> since I couldn't arrive at any precise and useful (normative) text

> in this regard.

> Please try to send in your comments before the
conf-call tomorrow (2/23)! 

> -- Sanjay 

> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

> Replace the entire content of section 2.3 (Assertion
Attachment) in 

> the WS-RM Policy specification with the following: 

> The RM policy assertion is allowed to have the
following Policy 

> Subjects [WS-PolicyAttachment]: 

> Endpoint Policy Subject 

> Message Policy Subject 

> WS-PolicyAttachment defines a set of WSDL/1.1
[WSDL 1.1] policy 

> attachment points for each of the above Policy Subjects. Since an
RM

> policy assertion specifies a concrete behavior, it MUST NOT be 

> attached to the abstract WSDL policy attachment points. 

> The following is the list of WSDL/1.1 elements
whose scope contains 

> the Policy Subjects allowed for an RM policy assertion but which 

> MUST NOT have RM policy assertions attached: 

> wsdl:message 

> wsdl:portType/wsdl:operation/wsdl:input 

> wsdl:portType/wsdl:operation/wsdl:output 

> wsdl:portType/wsdl:operation/wsdl:fault 

> wsdl:portType 

> The following is the list of WSDL/1.1 elements
whose scope contains 

> the Policy Subjects allowed for an RM policy assertion and which MAY

> have RM policy assertions attached:

> wsdl:port 

> wsdl:binding 

> wsdl:binding/wsdl:operation/wsdl:input 

> wsdl:binding/wsdl:operation/wsdl:output 

> wsdl:binding/wsdl:operation/wsdl:fault 

> If the RM policy assertion appears in a policy
expression attached 

> to a wsdl:binding as well as to the individual wsdl:binding level

> message definitions(wsdl:binding/wsdl:operation/wsdl:input, wsdl:

> binding/wsdl:operation/wsdl:output, wsdl:binding/wsdl:

> operation/wsdl:fault), the parameters in the former MUST be used and

> the latter ignored.

> If the RM policy assertion appears in a policy
expression attached 

> to a wsdl:port as well as to the other allowed WSDL/1.1 elements,

> the parameters in the former MUST be used and the latter ignored.