W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-addressing@w3.org > December 2005

New Issue: wsaw:UsingAddressing as a policy assertion

From: Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2005 17:14:55 -0800
Message-ID: <37D0366A39A9044286B2783EB4C3C4E8E3D115@RED-MSG-10.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>

The WSDL Binding specification defines both a WSDL extension and a SOAP
module for indicating the use of WS-Addressing.  Other WS specs that
Microsoft is implementing such as WS-ReliableMessaging,
WS-AtomicTransactions, and the various security specifications all rely
on policy assertions to indicate the use of their respective features.
In the long term, we'd like to use policy assertions consistently to
represent all these SOAP extensions.

As a result, Microsoft sees a need for a policy assertion indicating
WS-Addressing is in use.  Our preference is to use this marker as the
primary flag rather than either the WSDL extension or the SOAP module
even within our short-term products.

In other standards groups like the OASIS WS-RX TC, the policy assertions
are developed alongside the spec, by the same experts and on the same
timeline.  If we were starting WS-Addressing today, I believe we would
push for a similar ownership regime within the WS-Addressing WG, rather
than relying on external groups to define such policy assertions after
the fact.

Ideally, we would like to see the wsaw:UsingAddressing element converted
to a policy assertion rather than a WSDL extension.  The semantics of
this assertion/extension should be virtually identical to what we'd need
(although it's currently more complicated than we'd prefer), describing
the engagement of Addressing, the setting of the action values, and the
consequences on the MEPs.  The main change would be to explicitly
describe the element as a policy extension.  Some simplification might
be obtained since the WS-Policy framework defines wsp:Optional through a
mechanical transformation, reducing the amount of prose needed to
describe the optional behavior currently defined for
wsdl:required="false".

Secondarily, we'd like the use as a policy assertion sanctioned as on
option in the spec alongside the WSDL extension.

We recognize this request poses some timeline challenges, in developing
a version-neutral policy assertion prior to standardization of the
policy framework, but feel these issues are tractable.
Received on Friday, 2 December 2005 01:15:05 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:35:10 GMT