Anish,
Then I would have to insist that it
be OPTIONAL.
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
Anish Karmarkar <>
wrote on 03/02/2006 01:24:14 PM:
> 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.
