W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-addressing@w3.org > December 2006

RE: WS-Addr policy attachment

From: David Illsley <david.illsley@uk.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2006 15:41:04 +0000
To: "Gilbert Pilz" <Gilbert.Pilz@bea.com>
Cc: public-ws-addressing@w3.org
Message-ID: <OFA6AA8D5B.F5D7DD52-ON8025723C.0053CF89-8025723C.0056275D@uk.ibm.com>

I was definitely in the B camp last week but I've given it a bit of 
thought since then.

My understanding is that assertions which are found on multiple subjects 
are not merged hence I assume we'd only want to define a single policy 
subject[1] to attach addressing policy to. Any policy experts care to 
comment?

If that is the case, I believe that the Endpoint Policy Subject (port, 
binding, or portType in WSDL 1.1) would fit well with how I've experienced 
UsingAddressing being used. I can see a small case where you'd want to 
define the AnonymousResponses/NonAnonymousResponses on an Operation Policy 
level but I think the 90-99% case is that the policy would be the same at 
the Endpoint Policy level so specifying it only on the Operation Policy 
Subject would result in significant, unnecessary verbosity. So if my 
understanding above is correct, I'd tend towards choosing the Endpoint 
Policy Subject

If that isn't the case then, given I can see (rare) uses for specifying 
AnonymousResponses/NonAnonymousResponses on specific operations, I'd 
suggest both Endpoint Policy Subject and Operation Policy Subject.

David

[1] 
http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2006/ws/policy/ws-policy-primer.html?content-type=text/html;%20charset=utf-8#attaching-policy-expressions-to-wsdl2

David Illsley
Web Services Development
MP211, IBM Hursley Park, SO21 2JN
+44 (0)1962 815049 (Int. 245049)
david.illsley@uk.ibm.com



From:
"Gilbert Pilz" <Gilbert.Pilz@bea.com>
To:
"Gilbert Pilz" <Gilbert.Pilz@bea.com>, <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>
Date:
12/04/2006 07:16 PM
Subject:
RE: WS-Addr policy attachment


I see no responses to this message. It seems that
 
a.) people read this message but didn't think this was a problem
 
b.) people read this message, agreed it was a problem, but didn't have any 
ideas or solutions
 
c.) people read this message, agreed it was a problem, had some ideas, but 
were too busy to share them
 
d.) nobody read this message

From: public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org [
mailto:public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Gilbert Pilz
Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2006 1:08 PM
To: public-ws-addressing@w3.org
Subject: WS-Addr policy attachment

While working on my AI to write-up our conclusions from the concall of 
11/27 I realized that we haven't discussed where the policies that contain 
WS-Addr assertions MAY/SHOULD/MUST be attached as per Web Services Policy 
- Attachement [1].
Here are some things we need to figure out: 
1.) What is the permissible set of "policy subjects" for policies 
containing WS-Addr assertions? 
2.) What is the permissible set of WSDL elements for attaching policies 
containing WS-Addr assertions (e.g. wsdl:binding, wsdl:message, 
wsdl:portyType, etc.)?
3.) To what degree should the answer to the above questions be constrained 
by the fact that we already say: 
"The wsaw:UsingAddressing element SHOULD appear as a child of the 
wsdl:binding element. Alternatively, the wsaw:UsingAddressing element MAY 
instead be included as a child of the wsdl20:endpoint (or wsdl11:port) 
when an endpoint intends to indicate compliance with WS-Addressing for a 
specific endpoint only." [2]
[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-ws-policy-attach-20060927/ 
[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/CR-ws-addr-wsdl-20060529/#uaee 
- gp 
Received on Wednesday, 6 December 2006 15:41:38 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:35:15 GMT