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

Re: Proposal for WS-Policy assertions

From: David Illsley <david.illsley@uk.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2006 15:28:52 +0000
To: Marc Hadley <Marc.Hadley@Sun.COM>
Cc: "public-ws-addressing@w3.org List" <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>, public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org
Message-ID: <OFD26A4CD1.EDCF16C3-ON80257221.0052DC35-80257221.0054C3E2@uk.ibm.com>

Hi Marc, I have a few of questions:
1. Are these flags supposed to be proscriptive i.e. do we define behaviour 
if the server receives a response EPR which does not conform?
2. I assume the RM-Anon isn't supported/allowed if there is just a 
wsaw:AnonymousReplies?
3. I assume that, per the resolution of CR32, in the absence of 
wsaw:AnonymousReplies or wsaw:NonAnonymousReplies, the none-uri is 
supported (indeed logically is the only supported/allowed address to 
send)?

David

public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org wrote on 11/08/2006 08:50:58 PM:

> Gilbert and I took an action to propose some assertions for declaring 
> WS-Addr requirements/capabilities in WS-Policy. After a bit of 
> discussion we came up with the following three assertions:
> 
> (i) <wsaw:AddressingRequired/> - the endpoint requires WS-Addressing, 
> optionality can be conveyed using WS-Policy constructs.
> 
> (ii) <wsaw:AnonymousReplies/> - the endpoint can send replies using 
> WS-A anonymous; the endpoint can't send to anon if not present.
> 
> (iii) <wsaw:NonAnonymousReplies/> - the endpoint can send replies 
> using other addresses; the endpoint can't send to other addresses if 
> not present (unless some other assertion adds a class of supported 
> addresses).
> 
> Assertion (iii) is deliberately vague, its presence means that a non- 
> anon address might work but doesn't constrain what such an address 
> might look like - a receiver can still reject an address that it 
> doesn't grok or that requires a binding it doesn't support. The WG 
> decided against specifying things like available response bindings so 
> I think this is in line with that decision.
> 
> Here are some examples:
> 
> <wsp:Policy>
>    <wsaw:AddressingRequired/>
>    <wsaw:AnonymousReplies/>
> </wsp:Policy>
> 
> Means that addressing is required and only anonymous replies are
> supported.
> 
> <wsp:Policy>
>    <wsaw:AddressingRequired/>
>    <wsaw:NonAnonymousReplies/>
> </wsp:Policy>
> 
> Means that addressing is required and only non-anonymous replies are
> supported.
> 
> <wsp:Policy>
>    <wsaw:AddressingRequired/>
>    <wsaw:AnonymousReplies/>
>    <wsaw:NonAnonymousReplies/>
> </wsp:Policy>
> 
> Means that addressing is required and both anonymous and non-anonymous
> replies are supported.
> 
> <wsp:Policy>
>    <wsaw:AddressingRequired>
> </wsp:Policy>
> 
> Wouldn't be too useful for anything other than a one-way message 
> since neither anonymous nor non-anonymouse replies are supported.
> 
> <wsp:Policy>
>    <wsaw:AddressingRequired/>
>    <wsaw:AnonymousReplies/>
>    <wsfoo:AnonReplies/>
> </wsp:Policy>
> 
> Means that addressing is required and that anon replies as defined by 
> WS-Addr or WS-Foo are supported.
> 
> Marc.
> 
> ---
> Marc Hadley <marc.hadley at sun.com>
> CTO Office, Sun Microsystems.
> 
> 
Received on Thursday, 9 November 2006 15:26:23 GMT

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