RE: First cut policy write up

Comments below.

public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org wrote on 12/01/2006 10:34:05 PM:

> > I spent a while yesterday going over this proposal with Katy, 
> > Paco, and 
> > our WS-Policy development team and we have a couple of concerns.
> > 
> > 1. There is no way to mandate addressing in this proposal 
> > i.e. In normal 
> > form (once the wsp:Optionals etc have been expanded) the presence of 
> > wsaw:UsingAddressing only indicates addressing is supported. 
> > We need a way 
> > to say addressing is required. I don't have a proposal yet to 
> > deal with 
> > this.
> > 
> 
> I am really not following this point. Could you clarify? 
> 
> If you do not use wsp:optional and use the standard attachment
> mechanisms, why wouldn't WS-Addressing be NOT required. 
> 
> IF there is no alternative in the policy, the intersection algorithm and
> thus the client will treat WS-Addressing assertion as an addition that
> it needs to understood and thus make behavior required. 
> 

I agree that in those circumstances, the UsingAddressing assertion would 
be required for the client.
However, the example states:
> > <wsp:Policy>
> >   <wsaw:UsingAddressing>
> > </wsp:Policy>
> > This policy indicates that the subject supports the use of 
WS-Addressing. 

It explicitly does not say that inclusion of UsingAddressing in an 
alternative mandates the use of WS-Addressing, merely that it is 
supported, hence the concern.

David