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

Re: Policy assertions for CR33

From: Marc Hadley <Marc.Hadley@Sun.COM>
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 09:42:58 -0500
To: "public-ws-addressing@w3.org List" <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>
Message-id: <C941D222-CAEB-4BFF-BBE5-C1E40367897F@Sun.COM>
At the end of yesterdays call I suggested renaming the proposed  
assertions to align them with terminology already in the spec. Here  
are some suggested names:

Option 1:

<wsaw:WSASupported/>
<wsaw:WSAAnonymousResponses/>
<wsaw:WSANonAnonymousResponses/>

Option 2:

<wsaw:AnonymousResponsesOnly/>
<wsaw:NonAnonymousResponsesOnly/>

Thanks,
Marc.

On Oct 22, 2006, at 1:44 PM, Francisco Curbera wrote:

>
> Anish and I agreed to formulate a proposal for a policy assertion  
> replacement to the wsaw:Anonymous marker. I think this matches  
> option A6 in the latest mail from Bob listing the options.
>
> There are two options proposed below, and we suggest we accept  
> Option 1 because it is simpler to use and harder to misconfigure.  
> They are otherwise similar in their approach. In both cases, there  
> is a configuration corresponding to unconstrained WSA behavior,  
> plus two additional configurations in which the use of the  
> backchannel is either mandated or prohibited for responses.  
> Constrained configurations can only be specified for transports  
> where a backchannel is available as an alternative. The names of  
> the assertions are of course mildly irrelevant here, as long as  
> they convey the correct meaning. One more point: these proposals  
> assume no specific implementation of the represented behavior  
> (which we think is the right thing to do, as long as it is clear  
> that they are implementable).
>
> Option 1: Introduce three independent policy assertions with the  
> meaning "full WSA support", "WSA supported with responses over  
> backchannel only" and "WSA supported with responses over new  
> connection only". wsaw:UsingAddressing is not necessary in this  
> case and is therefore eliminated.
>
> <wsaw:WSASupported/>
> <wsaw:WSAResponseOverBackChannel/>
> <wsaw:WSAResponseOverNewConnection/>
>
> Option 2: Keep wsaw:UsingAddressing and add two policy assertions  
> that qualify WSA support wrt the use of the backchannel:
>
> <wsaw:ResponsesOverBackchannelOnly/>
> <wsaw:ResponsesOverNewConnectionOnly/>
>
> If only wsaw:UsingAddressing is used, then unrestricted WSA support  
> is assumed. If in addition to wsaw:UsingAddressing one of the  
> assertions above is used, then WSA behavior is accordingly limited  
> for response messages. In this case, using any of the Response*  
> policy assertions requires using the wsaw:UsingPolicy marker as well.
>
>
> Paco and Anish

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




Received on Tuesday, 31 October 2006 14:43:17 GMT

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