I don't understand why we would do that.
MPS is meant to attach policies with the message. That is it, nothing
more. Your requirement that this should require that the binding/port
support RM for all messages (in/out/fault) for that port/binding does
not provide the granularity that is needed.
For example, if an endpoint/port has an in-out operation it should be
able to assert that RM is supported/required on the in message and not
make any stmt about the out message or other message in other operations
supported at that port/endpoint/portType.
Instead, I quite like Sanjay's proposal.
-Anish
--
Christopher B Ferris wrote:
>
> 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:fault
>
> then 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.
