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

Re: New Issue: wsaw:UsingAddressing as a policy assertion [i066]

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2005 15:15:21 -0800
Message-Id: <282E49BE-E3EF-4211-B4E6-0839809019A8@mnot.net>
Cc: <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>
To: Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>

This is now issue 066;
   http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/addr/wd-issues/#i066

Cheers,


On 01/12/2005, at 5:14 PM, 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.
>
>


--
Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Thursday, 8 December 2005 23:15:38 GMT

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