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

Re: Alternative Proposal for WS-Policy Assertions

From: Marc Hadley <Marc.Hadley@Sun.COM>
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2006 16:54:32 -0500
To: "Yalcinalp, Umit" <umit.yalcinalp@sap.com>
Cc: David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>, public-ws-addressing@w3.org
Message-id: <926E3E2B-09DC-4741-ABF1-1847576E7E9B@Sun.COM>
On Nov 15, 2006, at 4:34 PM, Yalcinalp, Umit wrote:

> I see. So your point is this approach may allow others to invent their
> own Anonymous like semantics without being prohibitive.
>
Exactly. You say what you can do rather than what you can't so its  
easy to add other capabilities without contradicting the existing  
assertions.

Marc.

>
>> -----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.
>>
>>
>>

---
Marc Hadley <marc.hadley at sun.com>
CTO Office, Sun Microsystems.




Received on Wednesday, 15 November 2006 21:55:00 GMT

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