W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-addressing@w3.org > April 2007

RE: Composition usecase

From: Marc Goodner <mgoodner@microsoft.com>
Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2007 10:00:44 -0700
To: "tom@coastin.com" <tom@coastin.com>, Anish Karmarkar <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com>
CC: "public-ws-addressing@w3.org" <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>
Message-ID: <4D23423BBBF19E4188569D67B844381C5591CD2770@NA-EXMSG-C105.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>

I agree with Tom's breakdown here.

-----Original Message-----
From: public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org [mailto:public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Tom Rutt
Sent: Friday, March 23, 2007 9:50 AM
To: Anish Karmarkar
Cc: public-ws-addressing@w3.org
Subject: Re: Composition usecase


Anish Karmarkar wrote:
>
> Below is the usecase that I mentioned on the call:
>
> The endpoint can only send messages on the 'back-channel' it will not
> open a new connection to send messages (firewall does not allow it).
> The endpoint also supports (but does not require) WSRM. What this
> means is:
>
> 1) When wsrm is not used it requires the anon URI for responses.
> 2) When wsrm is used, it requires the MC template (non-anon URI per
> ws-addr) for responses.
>
> -Anish
> --
>
Response senders's Policy:
Policy.for.Anish.Use.case.using.Alterntative.F:.
......(explicit.support.claims,.empty.=.no.responses)

<Policy>
...<ExactlyOne>
......<All>
.........<wsa:Addressing>...<--.Addressing.required,.anonymous.responses.supported-->
............<Policy><wsa:AnonymousResponses./></Policy>
.........</wsa:Addressing>
......</All>
......<All>
.........<wsa:Addressing>..<--Addressing.required,.NonAnon.Responses.supported-->
............<Policy><wsa:NonAnonymousResponses./></Policy>
.........</wsa:Addressing>
.........<wsrmp:RMAssertion.>..<--.RM.required.-->
............<wsp:Policy>.
...............<--..any.nested.policy.is.asserted.here.-->
............</wsp:Policy>.
.........</wsrmp:RMAssertion>
........<wsmc:MCSupported/>..<--.Make.Connection.URI.required.for.responses-->
......</All>
...</ExactlyOne>
</Policy>


Policy.for.Anish.Use.Case.using.Alternative.G.(empty implies both response types supported, nested assertion implies explicit requirement for one response type) would.be.the.same.as.with.alternative.F:


----------------------------------------------------
Tom Rutt        email: tom@coastin.com; trutt@us.fujitsu.com
Tel: +1 732 801 5744          Fax: +1 732 774 5133
Received on Monday, 2 April 2007 17:02:37 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:35:16 GMT