Re: First cut policy write up

On Nov 29, 2006, at 6:15 PM, Gilbert Pilz wrote:
>
> <wsp:Policy>
>   <wsaw:AnonymousResponses>
> </wsp:Policy>
>
> This policy indicates that the subject supports the use of WS- 
> Addressing and,
> in particular, will accept request messages with response endpoint  
> EPRs that
> contain the anonymous URI. If a fault is generated as a result of  
> sending a
> request message to an endpoint with this effective policy, that  
> fault will not
> be due to the fact that the request message includes WS-Addressing  
> headers nor
> will it be due to the fact that the response endpoint EPRs contain the
> anonymous URI as an address. Note that nothing is said about either  
> supporting
> or not supporting the use of non-anonymous URIs.
>
> <wsp:Policy>
>   <wsaw:UsingAddressing>
>   <wsaw:AnonymousResponses>
> </wsp:Policy>
>
> The above policy is semantically equivalent to the previous  
> example. Note that
> this example could be the result of combining two separate policies  
> (e.g. one
> attached at a wsdl:binding and the other at a wsdl20:endpoint (or
> wsdl11:port)) into a single effective policy.
>
Given this equivalence I think there's still a need for domain- 
specific policy intersection. The processor needs to know that  
<wsaw:UsingAddressing> is implicit in <wsaw:AnonymousResponses>. Right ?

> <wsp:Policy>
>   <wsaw:NonAnonymousResponses>
> </wsp:Policy>
>
> <wsp:Policy>
>   <wsaw:UsingAddressing>
>   <wsaw:NonAnonymousResponses>
> </wsp:Policy>
>
> The above two policies are identical ways of expressing the fact  
> that the
> subject supports the use of WS-Addressing and, in particular, will  
> accept
> request messages with response endpoint EPRs that contain URIs  
> other than the
> anonymous URI.

Same comment as above.

Marc.

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