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

RE: Alternative Proposal for WS-Policy Assertions

From: Yalcinalp, Umit <umit.yalcinalp@sap.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2006 13:34:36 -0800
Message-ID: <2BA6015847F82645A9BB31C7F9D6416502AC474D@uspale20.pal.sap.corp>
To: "Marc Hadley" <Marc.Hadley@Sun.COM>, "David Orchard" <dorchard@bea.com>
Cc: <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>

I see. So your point is this approach may allow others to invent their
own Anonymous like semantics without being prohibitive. 

--umit
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Marc Hadley
> Sent: Wednesday, Nov 15, 2006 7:42 AM
> To: David Orchard
> Cc: public-ws-addressing@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Alternative Proposal for WS-Policy Assertions
> 
> How would you characterize the advantages of "opt-out" vs "opt-in" ?  
> Less assertions in the case of full support ?
> 
> We got to the "opt-in" approach during the last telcon as a way of  
> avoiding the problems that <Anonymous>required</Anonymous> 
> causes for  
> other specs that might want to define their own anon-like addresses  
> while preserving the specificity of the assertion. Your  
> <wsaw:NoNonAnonymousReplies/> (which includes anon addresses defined  
> outside of WS-A) seems to share the problem of being non- 
> deterministic wrt to WS-A processing that loosening the semantics of  
> <Anonymous>required</Anonymous> would entail.
> 
> Marc.
> 
> 
> On Nov 14, 2006, at 2:50 PM, David Orchard wrote:
> 
> >
> > I've taken MarcH's Updated Proposal and done a substantial change  
> > to the
> > proposal.  I'll characterize MarcH's proposal as the "opt-in" style,
> > where the default is nothing specified and the assertions have to be
> > added to opt-in.  An alternative is the "opt-out" style, where the
> > default is everything is specified and the assertions are 
> to opt-out.
> >
> > This proposal defines three new elements for use in WS-Policy.
> >
> > (i) <wsaw:AddressingRequired/> - the endpoint requires 
> WS-Addressing,
> > optionality can be conveyed using WS-Policy constructs.  By default,
> > Anonymous
> > Responses and Non Anonymous Responses are supported.
> >
> > (ii) <wsaw:NoAnonymousResponses/> (a child element of
> > <wsaw:AddressingRequired>) - the endpoint cannot send 
> replies using  
> > WS-A
> > or
> > other anonymous; the endpoint can send to any anon if not present.
> >
> > (iii) <wsaw:NoNonAnonymousResponses/> (a child element of
> > <wsaw:AddressingRequired>) - the endpoint cannot send replies using
> > other addresses; the endpoint can send to other addresses if not
> > present (unless some other assertion adds a class of supported
> > addresses). Note: The "NoNon" is a bit strange but it works in this
> > case.
> >
> > Here are some examples:
> >
> > <wsp:Policy>
> >    <wsaw:AddressingRequired/>
> > </wsp:Policy>
> >
> > Means that addressing is required and both anonymous and 
> non-anonymous
> > replies are supported.
> >
> > <wsp:Policy>
> >    <wsaw:AddressingRequired>
> >      <wsaw:NoAnonymousReplies/>
> >    </wsaw:AddressingRequired>
> > </wsp:Policy>
> >
> > Means that addressing is required and only non-anonymous replies are
> > supported.
> >
> > <wsp:Policy>
> >    <wsaw:AddressingRequired>
> >      <wsaw:NoNonAnonymousReplies/>
> >    </wsaw:AddressingRequired>
> > </wsp:Policy>
> >
> > Means that addressing is required and only anonymous replies are
> > Supported, this includes anonymous replies defined by other
> > specifications.
> >
> > <wsp:Policy>
> >    <wsaw:AddressingRequired>
> >      <wsaw:NoNonAnonymousReplies/>
> >      <wsfoo:NoNonAnonymousReplies/>
> >    </wsaw:AddressingRequired>
> > </wsp:Policy>
> >
> > Means that addressing is required and anonymous replies other than  
> > those
> >
> > defined by wsfoo are supported.
> >
> > <wsp:Policy>
> >    <wsaw:AddressingRequired>
> >      <wsaw:NoAnonymousReplies/>
> >      <wsaw:NoNonAnonymousReplies/>
> >      <wsfoo:NoAnonymousReplies/>
> >    </wsaw:AddressingRequired
> > </wsp:Policy>
> >
> > Means that addressing is required and anonymous replies other than  
> > those
> >
> > defined by wsfoo are supported.
> >
> > <wsp:Policy>
> >    <wsaw:AddressingRequired>
> >      <wsaw:NoAnonymousReplies/>
> >      <wsaw:NoNonAnonymousReplies/>
> >    </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:NoAnonymousReplies/>
> >      <wsaw:NoNonAnonymousReplies/>
> >      <wsfoo:AnonymousReplies/>
> >    </wsaw:AddressingRequired
> > </wsp:Policy>
> >
> > Means that addressing is required and only wsfoo anonymous replies
> > are supported.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Dave
> >
> 
> ---
> Marc Hadley <marc.hadley at sun.com>
> CTO Office, Sun Microsystems.
> 
> 
> 
Received on Wednesday, 15 November 2006 21:35:17 GMT

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