W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-addressing@w3.org > February 2009

WS-AddressingMetadata Maintenance Issue: (re: [wsi_wsbasic] BP 20133: proposal 1)

From: Monica Martin <momartin@microsoft.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2009 10:34:05 -0800
To: Bob Freund <Bob.Freund@hitachisoftware.com>, "ylafon@w3.org" <ylafon@w3.org>, "public-ws-addressing@w3.org" <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>
CC: "Jitendra.Kotamraju@Sun.COM" <Jitendra.Kotamraju@Sun.COM>, "Rama.Pulavarthi@Sun.COM" <Rama.Pulavarthi@Sun.COM>, Ram Jeyaraman <Ram.Jeyaraman@microsoft.com>
Message-ID: <0189025CA1828C4E9C4312130A494D7F39692275EC@NA-EXMSG-C118.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>

An issue has been filed in the WS-I Basic Profile WG that belongs to WS-Addressing WG with possible assistance from the WS-Policy WG. The issue was filed in WS-I Basic Profile WG because the WS-Addressing WG was closed. The issue seeks to overturn a fundamental concept and constraint in WS-Addressing-Metadata 1.0 and could conflict with WS-Policy best practices. We've paraphrased the features sought, requirements requested and potential conflict it presents for existing implementations of WS-Addressing Metadata 1.0.  As a WS-A Core schema change was handled in late July 2008 by W3C on behalf of the WS-Addressing WG [1], can you assist us in clarifying and resolving this issue?

The proposed changes:
1. Overturn a WS-AM 1.0 restriction that wsam:Addressing be limited to an endpoint policy subject [2]: Mandates these assertions be attached to a WSDL 1.1 port, binding or wsdl11:binding/wsdl:operation.
2. Could conflict with WS-Policy best practices on altering semantics of existing assertions for a policy subject: Allows a policy assertion to be used across different policy subjects without versioning or a clear indication how to differentiate semantics for assertion implementers. [3]
3. Disregards the existing structure of WS-AM policy assertions that can support such a Description without this change and without jeopardizing backward compatibility [4]: This proposal affects interoperable implementations that tested in July 2007 into non-conforming implementations. [5]
4. Introduces a substantive change or new conflicting feature to WS-AM.

Can you also advise what is the maintenance plan for the WS-Addressing WG? Can you comment or act on this substantive WS-AM change? Are you in agreement to such a change in WS-I? [6]

Your prompt attention would be appreciated.  Responses can be directed to the chair of the WS-I Basic Profile WG. Thanks.

Jitendra Kotamraju, Sun Microsystems
Monica J. Martin, Microsoft Corporation

[1] IBM request resolution: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2008Jul/0001.html
[2] The same approach was also taken by SOAP/XMLP for MTOM.
[3] The wsam:Addressing policy assertion is applied on multiple policy subjects with differing semantics - No versioning is use. No mechanism is provided for existing implementations to be backward compatible. Clients may be unable to find a compatible policy.
http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/NOTE-ws-policy-guidelines-20071112/#supporting-new-policy-subjects, http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/NOTE-ws-policy-guidelines-20071112/#bp-WSDL-multiple-policy-subjects, http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/NOTE-ws-policy-primer-20071112/#versioning-policy-language, http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/REC-ws-policy-attach-20070904/#CalculatingEffectivyPolicywithWSDL1.1 and http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/NOTE-ws-policy-guidelines-20071112/#versioning-policy-assertions
[4] A portType can be separated into two separate ones, one which contains one type of operations and the other which targets another type. This description supports interface related features sought by tools as was envisioned by W3C. 
[5] http://dev.w3.org/2004/ws/addressing/testsuitewsdl/report/
[6] http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html#rec-modify and http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html#correction-classes
Received on Tuesday, 3 February 2009 19:51:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:04:17 UTC