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

Updated proposal for WS-Policy assertions

From: Marc Hadley <Marc.Hadley@Sun.COM>
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2006 18:40:43 -0500
To: "public-ws-addressing@w3.org List" <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>
Message-id: <50CAE6A1-6D48-4B93-9A50-182DE096A43F@Sun.COM>
The first part of the proposal is to remove the current  
wsaw:Anonymous WSDL marker. I think we might need to tweak the  
section describing the UsingAddressing marker to include the  
following text (modified to remove mentions of policy and anonymous)  
from the section describing the wsaw:Anonymous marker:

"A WSDL-based service description that includes the  
wsaw:UsingAddressing makes no assertion regarding a requirement or a  
constraint in the use of the anonymous URI in EPRs contained in  
messages sent to the endpoint."

The current text for UsingAddressing could be taken to imply that  
endpoints using it explicitly support anon and non-anon addresses but  
I think the intent is that UsingAddressing makes no claim about the  
types of address supported.

The second part of the proposal is to define three new elements for  
use in WS-Policy.

(i) <wsaw:AddressingRequired/> - the endpoint requires WS-Addressing,  
optionality can be conveyed using WS-Policy constructs.

(ii) <wsaw:AnonymousResponses/> (a child element of  
<wsaw:AddressingRequired>) - the endpoint can send replies using WS-A  
anonymous; the endpoint can't send to anon if not present.

(iii) <wsaw:NonAnonymousResponses/> (a child element of  
<wsaw:AddressingRequired>) - 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).

Element (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/>
   </wsaw:AddressingRequired>
</wsp:Policy>

Means that addressing is required and only anonymous replies are
supported.

<wsp:Policy>
   <wsaw:AddressingRequired>
     <wsaw:NonAnonymousReplies/>
   </wsaw:AddressingRequired>
</wsp:Policy>

Means that addressing is required and only non-anonymous replies are
supported.

<wsp:Policy>
   <wsaw:AddressingRequired>
     <wsaw:AnonymousReplies/>
     <wsaw:NonAnonymousReplies/>
   </wsaw:AddressingRequired>
</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/>
   </wsaw:AddressingRequired>
</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 Monday, 13 November 2006 23:40:56 GMT

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