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

Re: New Issue: wsaw:UsingAddressing as a policy assertion

From: Anish Karmarkar <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com>
Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2005 11:35:15 -0800
Message-ID: <4390A1F3.1070603@oracle.com>
To: Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
CC: public-ws-addressing@w3.org

Jonathan Marsh wrote:
> 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.

Could you elaborate on why (and how) you feel that these issues are 
Timelines and scope of the charter have been paramount to this WG since 
its inception. This new requirement, I would think, will result in a 
(unbounded?) delay.

But more importantly, like Paul, I'm concerned about "... policy 
assertion prior to standardization of the policy framework ..."
I don't see how (and why) the WSA WG would come up with a standard 
policy assertion for a non-standard framework (of which there are 
several versions).


Received on Friday, 2 December 2005 19:35:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:04:12 UTC