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

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

From: Yalcinalp, Umit <umit.yalcinalp@sap.com>
Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2005 12:34:59 -0800
Message-ID: <2BA6015847F82645A9BB31C7F9D64165AB6333@uspale20.pal.sap.corp>
To: <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>

Apologies if you get this twice. Somehow the email will not appear in
the archives. 

-----Original Message-----
From: Yalcinalp, Umit 
Sent: Friday, Dec 02, 2005 12:17 PM
To: 'Jonathan Marsh'; public-ws-addressing@w3.org
Subject: RE: New Issue: wsaw:UsingAddressing as a policy assertion


> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of 
> Jonathan Marsh
> Sent: Thursday, Dec 01, 2005 5:15 PM
> To: public-ws-addressing@w3.org
> Subject: New Issue: wsaw:UsingAddressing as a policy assertion
> 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.


I am trying to understand why you are positioning this as a mutually
exclusive decision, WS-Policy assertions vs. WS-Addressing element
extension and speaking of a need for a conversion. 

As one of the editor's of the WS-RX tc, let me make the observation that
after all WS-Policy assertions are global elements. UsingAddressing
element/Anonymous element (which we are currently discussing in the wg)
are elements as well. In my opinion, whether we call them
UsingAddressing element vs. WSAddressingAssertion element does not
really change the technical definition of these elements. It would be a
technical fallacy to  present them as two separate beasts. If the
concern is the usage SOAP module, that is a separate debate in my
opinion. Policy assertions for a specific domain are not defined within
the WS-Policy namespace, they are defined within a specific domain's
namespace. We already have that with WS-Addressing. 

Therefore, definition of these extensions can be easily used as Policy
assertions. The only thing that is of concern is the expression of
optionality as you have observed, but it seems to me that that could be
easily handled by careful editorial handling without derailing the

> 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.

I feel that we should not position the task of the wg to define markup
to indicate that WS-Addressing is engaged as a WS-Policy assertion vs
WSDL extension. Then this boils down to whether your concern is more
related to labelling the document where this element and its semantics
is described as a WSDL binding document instead of a Policy assertion
document. IMO, the contents would be pretty darn similar anyway,
wouldn't they? 

I have illustrated, and I am sure you are well knowledgeable in this as
well, that using the same elements as Policy assertions is NOT really an
issue here. Therefore, I am trying to understand what you are really
asking the wg to consider at this point in concrete terms. Not define
the markup or define the markup so that there is no conflict and there
is potential to use it with WS-Policy? ...Change the slant of the WSDL
binding document so it is interpreted as a WSAddressing Policy Assertion
document and its implications when attached to WSDL? 

Thanks for the clarification in advance, 



Received on Friday, 2 December 2005 20:33:07 UTC

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