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

RE: Updated proposal for WS-Policy assertions

From: Yalcinalp, Umit <umit.yalcinalp@sap.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2006 17:57:45 -0800
Message-ID: <2BA6015847F82645A9BB31C7F9D6416502AC4248@uspale20.pal.sap.corp>
To: "Rogers, Tony" <Tony.Rogers@ca.com>, "Marc Hadley" <Marc.Hadley@Sun.COM>, <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>

Thanks Tony, but this does not answer my question. See below. 

As a policy wonk, I look at it and scratch my head. In my opinion, you
could easily move wsaw:UsingAddressing as a policy assertion with
wsp:optional if the capability was not required. However, if the spec
does not explain this well and most importantly the interaction between
the new assertions and the existing marker, it would not be useful. 

For example, 

(a) should I be able to indicate the capability of addressing
independent of WSDL?
(b) If addressing is not enabled, should I be able to attach a policy
expression with WS-A assertions on top? 
C)If my intersection algorithm understands the 3 policy assertions, do I
still have to look at WSDL to make sense of the complete picture?  
(d) How does WS-Policy intersection algorithm work depending on how you
answer question 2? 

I am trying to answer these myself, so I do not think that the fat lady
has started to sing yet although the necessary steps were made in the
right direction. 

Cheers, 

--umit


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rogers, Tony [mailto:Tony.Rogers@ca.com] 
> Sent: Tuesday, Nov 14, 2006 5:51 PM
> To: Yalcinalp, Umit; Marc Hadley; public-ws-addressing@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Updated proposal for WS-Policy assertions
> 
> 
> UsingAddressing will be used as a WSDL marker, but not as an 
> assertion.
> That is because the semantics in WSDL are different from the semantics
> in policy (this was discussed at length on the most recent 
> WS-Addressing
> call). Thus the assertion is AddressingRequired, with optionality
> conveyed by WS-Policy constructs - it is straightforward to 
> interconvert
> between the WSDL marker and the Policy form, but neither is really
> suited for use in place of the other. Giving them different 
> names helps
> make it clear that they are different (albeit related).
> 
> wsaw:Anonymous will be removed as an assertion, replaced by two new
> assertions (two options here). One of the reasons for the 
> removal is the
> desire to avoid parameterised assertions, per WS-Policy.
> 
> Tony Rogers
> tony.rogers@ca.com
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org
> [mailto:public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Yalcinalp,
> Umit
> Sent: Wednesday, 15 November 2006 12:18
> To: Marc Hadley; public-ws-addressing@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Updated proposal for WS-Policy assertions
> 
> 
> What am I missing? Probably I am a bit out of sync, so apologies in
> advance for this question. 
> 
> What is not clear to me regardless of the decision on 
> opt-in/opt-out is
> that the relationship with the wsaw:UsingAddressing. The 
> other aspect is
> more easily resolvable. 
> 
> I did not see the marker being removed to be proposed. I did not also
> see whether the proposed new markers were children (nested assertions)
> within the marker. 
> 
> This is a very important aspect of assertion design. 
> 
> Marc/Dave? Could you clarify where you were heading with 
> respect to the
> existing element in Section 3.1?
> 
> Is UsingAddressing become an assertion too? BTW, there is no  
> as stated
> to the use of UsingAddressing as an assertion, except modifying the
> @wsdl:required attribute . Thus it is very conceivable that 
> the proposed
> 3 assertions will have to be clarified and used with the
> wsaw:UsingAddressing anyway as Anonymous element was trying 
> to attempt. 
> 
> --umit
>  
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org
> > [mailto:public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of 
> Marc Hadley
> > Sent: Tuesday, Nov 14, 2006 5:55 AM
> > To: public-ws-addressing@w3.org List
> > Subject: Re: Updated proposal for WS-Policy assertions
> > 
> > In the examples, s/Replies/Responses/.
> > 
> > Marc.
> > 
> > On Nov 13, 2006, at 6:40 PM, Marc Hadley wrote:
> > 
> > > 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.
> > >
> > >
> > 
> > ---
> > Marc Hadley <marc.hadley at sun.com>
> > CTO Office, Sun Microsystems.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
> 
Received on Wednesday, 15 November 2006 01:58:16 GMT

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