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

Draft insertion as part of the errata process:

When presented with conflicting policies, endpoints or services are  
expected to make do with what they have, since these assertions do not  
present demands but describe some acceptable forms of addresses,  
potentially amongst others, that might be accepted.  By making do with  
what it has, the service or end point is to collect all the various  
bits of policy assertions it has at its disposal and may consider them  
all to be potentially usable policy alternatives.  Implementations are  
encouraged to respond with a non-anonymous form if presented or an  
anonymous form if not.

Irrational behavior such as locking up completely, or electronically  
spitting the dummy by throwing faults that nobody is listening for and  
might not be received anyway especially since you can't determine what  
address form is acceptable, is not to be tolerated and will result in  
a free membership to the WS-Policy Working Group with the Complements  
of WS-Addressing.

-bob

On Feb 16, 2009, at 12:08 PM, Yalcinalp, Umit wrote:

> Looks like the perfect thing that an "errata" process should handle.
>
> --umit
>
>
> From: Gilbert Pilz [mailto:gilbert.pilz@oracle.com]
> Sent: Saturday, February 14, 2009 4:16 PM
> To: Bob Freund
> Cc: Fabian Ritzmann; Anish Karmarkar; Yalcinalp, Umit; Rogers, Tony; ashok.malhotra@oracle.com 
> ; Rama Pulavarthi; Monica Martin; ylafon@w3.org; public-ws-addressing@w3.org 
> ; Jitendra.Kotamraju@Sun.COM; Ram Jeyaraman; wsi_wsbasic@mp.ws-i.org
> Subject: Re: [wsi_wsbasic] Re: WS-AddressingMetadata Maintenance  
> Issue: (re: [wsi_wsbasic] BP 20133: proposal 1)
>
> You don't need the two nested assertions to occur in the same policy  
> alternative for there to be a conflict. Take a look at the following  
> WSDL, it has two wsam:Addressing policies that are attached where WS- 
> AM 1.0 currently says you can attach them, yet there is a conflict.
>
> <wsdl:definitions targetNamespace="http://www.wstf.org/docs/scenarios/sc003 
> "
>                   . . .
>                   xmlns:wsam="http://www.w3.org/2007/05/addressing/metadata 
> "
>                   xmlns:wsp="http://www.w3.org/ns/ws-policy">
>   . . .
>   <wsdl:binding name="sc003SOAP12Binding" type="tns:sc003Port">
>     <wsp:Policy>
>       <wsam:Addressing>
>         <wsp:Policy>
>           <wsam:NonAnonymousResponses/>
>         </wsp:Policy>
>       </wsam:Addressing>
>     </wsp:Policy>
>     . . .
>   </wsdl:binding>
>
>   <wsdl:service name="sc003Service">
>     <wsdl:port name="soap12port" binding="tns:sc003SOAP12Binding">
>       <wsp:Policy>
>         <wsam:Addressing>
>           <wsp:Policy>
>             <wsam:AnonymousResponses/>
>           </wsp:Policy>
>         </wsam:Addressing>
>       </wsp:Policy>
>       <soap12:address location="http://www.wstf.org/sc003/ 
> sc003SOAP12"/>
>     </wsdl:port>
>   </wsdl:service>
>
> </wsdl:definitions>
>
> The knowledge necessary to resolve this conflict is no less domain- 
> specific than the knowledge necessary to figure out what to do when,  
> for example, a binding is marked as non-anon but a specific  
> operations is marked as supporting anon.
>
> - gp
>
> Bob Freund wrote:
>>
>> In WS-Addressing metadata 1.0 section 3.1.3 it says that
>> "The wsam:NonAnonymousResponses policy assertion MUST NOT be used  
>> in the same policy alternative as the wsam:AnonymousResponses  
>> policy assertion."
>>
>> So, is the issue what happens when that conflict occurs?
>> Is the issue that no fault is identified?
>> With respect to fault transmission, should it be desired, where  
>> might it be sent unless there existed some non-conflicting policy?
>> -bob
>>
>>
>> On Feb 13, 2009, at 4:04 AM, Fabian Ritzmann wrote:
>>
>>> On 13. Feb 2009, at 08:40, Anish Karmarkar wrote:
>>>
>>>> In this particular case, how would one know that  
>>>> wsam:AnonymousResponse conflicts with wsam:NonAnonymousResponse  
>>>> unless you have some domain-specific information. These are two  
>>>> different QNames.
>>>>
>>>> Based on the responses and the spec, it seems that the following  
>>>> three scenarios are identical:
>>>> 1) NonAnon on binding and Anon on port
>>>> 2) A policy on binding (or port) that says: <wsp:All>Anon +  
>>>> NonAnon</wsp:All>
>>>> 3) NonAnon on binding and Anon on binding/operation (if this were  
>>>> to be allowed)
>>>>
>>>> So, I don't quite see why allowing addressing assertion on  
>>>> binding/operation makes things any more problematic than it  
>>>> already is (as far as this specific issue is concerned).
>>>
>>> It seems that we have established that there may be conflicting  
>>> addressing policies and those conflicts can only be detected and  
>>> resolved in a domain-specific manner. Apparently that issue had  
>>> been ignored or not recognized by the WS-Addressing WG earlier. I  
>>> believe that the WS-Addressing WG would need to address that  
>>> issue. The proposal has highlighted this issue and addressing it  
>>> would remove one major concern with the proposal.
>>>
>>> Fabian
>>>
>>>
>>>> Yalcinalp, Umit wrote:
>>>>> I go away and look what happens :-) Read Section 4.5 carefully,  
>>>>> mate.
>>>>> Not all compatibility is domain specific. If you do not have  
>>>>> assertion
>>>>> params, you have the Qnames to go with for compatibility. The  
>>>>> whole idea
>>>>> is to rely on the types as much as possible and make the  
>>>>> exceptions an
>>>>> exception, not a norm, so that one could rely on a program, not  
>>>>> a human
>>>>> to make the determination of compatibility, whether it is lax or  
>>>>> strict.
>>>>> Thus, compatibility is well defined in a domain-independent  
>>>>> world. This
>>>>> is why parametric assertions of the past became the nested  
>>>>> assertions of
>>>>> today. But, I will sign off for now. Have fun!   HTH, --umit
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: Rogers, Tony [mailto:Tony.Rogers@ca.com] Sent: Thursday,  
>>>>> February 12, 2009 4:34 PM
>>>>> To: ashok.malhotra@oracle.com; Yalcinalp, Umit
>>>>> Cc: Anish Karmarkar; Rama Pulavarthi; Gilbert Pilz; Monica  
>>>>> Martin; Bob
>>>>> Freund; ylafon@w3.org; public-ws-addressing@w3.org;
>>>>> Jitendra.Kotamraju@Sun.COM; Ram Jeyaraman; wsi_wsbasic@mp.ws- 
>>>>> i.org;
>>>>> Fabian Ritzmann
>>>>> Subject: RE: [wsi_wsbasic] Re: WS-AddressingMetadata Maintenance  
>>>>> Issue:
>>>>> (re: [wsi_wsbasic] BP 20133: proposal 1)
>>>>> I thought the "explanation" was that policy compatibility was
>>>>> domain-dependent, and could not be stated in a general way?
>>>>> But yes, something of a diversion from topic.
>>>>> Tony Rogers
>>>>> tony.rogers@ca.com
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org
>>>>> [mailto:public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of ashok  
>>>>> malhotra
>>>>> Sent: Friday, 13 February 2009 11:23
>>>>> To: Yalcinalp, Umit
>>>>> Cc: Anish Karmarkar; Rama Pulavarthi; Gilbert Pilz; Monica  
>>>>> Martin; Bob
>>>>> Freund; ylafon@w3.org; public-ws-addressing@w3.org;
>>>>> Jitendra.Kotamraju@Sun.COM; Ram Jeyaraman; wsi_wsbasic@mp.ws- 
>>>>> i.org;
>>>>> Fabian Ritzmann
>>>>> Subject: Re: [wsi_wsbasic] Re: WS-AddressingMetadata Maintenance  
>>>>> Issue:
>>>>> (re: [wsi_wsbasic] BP 20133: proposal 1)
>>>>> Hi Umit, good to hear from you!
>>>>> Unfortunately, this is like a eleventh commandment -- Thou shalt  
>>>>> not attach incompatible policies
>>>>> It does not say how incompatible policies can be detected, nor  
>>>>> does it say what to do when you find incompatible policies
>>>>> But I think we are getting away from the original topic.
>>>>> All the best, Ashok
>>>>> Yalcinalp, Umit wrote:
>>>>>> Did we duck or actually say the following in section 4.1?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> {It is RECOMMENDED that, where specific policy assertions  
>>>>>> associated
>>>>>> with one policy subject are only compatible with specific policy
>>>>>> assertions on another policy subject in the same hierarchical  
>>>>>> chain,
>>>>> the
>>>>>> policies containing these assertions should be attached within a
>>>>> single
>>>>>> WSDL binding hierarchy.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For any given port, the policy alternatives for each policy  
>>>>>> subject
>>>>> type
>>>>>> SHOULD be compatible with each of the policy alternatives at  
>>>>>> each of
>>>>> the
>>>>>> policy subjects parent and child policy subjects, such that  
>>>>>> choices
>>>>>> between policy alternatives at each level are independent of each
>>>>>> other.}
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We did not address what should happen when conflicts arise, but  
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> recommendation is not to create conflicts in the first place...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --umit
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>> From: public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org
>>>>>> [mailto:public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of ashok
>>>>> malhotra
>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2009 3:29 PM
>>>>>> To: Anish Karmarkar
>>>>>> Cc: Rama Pulavarthi; Gilbert Pilz; Monica Martin; Bob Freund;
>>>>>> ylafon@w3.org; public-ws-addressing@w3.org;
>>>>> Jitendra.Kotamraju@Sun.COM;
>>>>>> Ram Jeyaraman; wsi_wsbasic@mp.ws-i.org; Fabian Ritzmann
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [wsi_wsbasic] Re: WS-AddressingMetadata Maintenance
>>>>> Issue:
>>>>>> (re: [wsi_wsbasic] BP 20133: proposal 1)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Unfortunately, WS-Policy ducked this question.  There are many  
>>>>>> situations where you can attach conflicting policies and there  
>>>>>> is no guidance as to what should be done.   Note that, in  
>>>>>> general, it can be
>>>>>> difficult to tell if policies are in conflict.
>>>>>> All the best, Ashok
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Anish Karmarkar wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Good question.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Shouldn't the answer be the same as what would happen if the
>>>>> operation
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> specific policy was instead attached to the port? This would  
>>>>>>> give you
>>>>>>> conflicting policies on binding and port and would have to be  
>>>>>>> merged.
>>>>>>> These attachment points are currently allowed by the spec.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -Anish
>>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Rama Pulavarthi wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Some questions on the proposal.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Gilbert Pilz wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> As the authors of the proposal in question, Oracle feels  
>>>>>>>>> obliged to
>>>>>>>>> refute the inaccuracies in the arguments presented by our
>>>>> colleagues
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> from Microsoft and Sun as well as present our case with  
>>>>>>>>> regards to the proposal.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> With regards to the particular points:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 1.) What this point fails to mention is that WS-Adressing  
>>>>>>>>> 1.0 - Metadata (WS-AM 1.0) *already* states that the  
>>>>>>>>> wsam:Addressing assertion can be attached to the wsdl11:port  
>>>>>>>>> or wsd11l:binding. Our
>>>>>>>>> proposal *extends* the existing specification to allow this  
>>>>>>>>> assertion to be attached to wsdl11:binding/wsdl11:operation  
>>>>>>>>> and applies this extension to the Operation Policy Subject.  
>>>>>>>>> Our
>>>>> proposal
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> does not alter the structure or the semantics of the
>>>>> wsam:Addressing
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> assertion.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What if conflicting policies are attached at the Endpoint  
>>>>>>>> policy subject and Operation policy subject.
>>>>>>>> For example, on wsdl:binding it is specified as
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> <wsp:Policy>
>>>>>>>>   <wsam:Addressing>
>>>>>>>>       <wsp:Policy>
>>>>>>>>           <wsam:NonAnonymousResponses/>
>>>>>>>>       </wsp:Policy>
>>>>>>>>   </wsam:Addressing>
>>>>>>>> and on the </wsp:Policy>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> and on |wsdl11:binding/wsdl11:operation
>>>>>>>> |
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> <wsp:Policy>
>>>>>>>>   <wsam:Addressing>
>>>>>>>>       <wsp:Policy>
>>>>>>>>           <wsam:AnonymousResponses/>
>>>>>>>>       </wsp:Policy>
>>>>>>>>   </wsam:Addressing>
>>>>>>>> and on the </wsp:Policy>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Which one should be used?, How is the effective policy for  
>>>>>>>> that operation calculated?
>>>>>>>> Its not precedence but a merge of these policies that is used  
>>>>>>>> to calculate the effective policy as per http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/REC-ws-policy-attach-20070904/#merge 
>>>>>>>> .
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Is BP going to specify all the Addressing domain specific  
>>>>>>>> rules to handle merging of conflicting policies?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 2.) The assertion that this proposal conflicts with WS- 
>>>>>>>>> Policy best practices is false. Reference [3] below includes  
>>>>>>>>> the following
>>>>> text:
>>>>>>>>>   When the assertion's semantics do not change to invalidate  
>>>>>>>>> any
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> of
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>   the original policy subjects but new policy subjects need  
>>>>>>>>> to be
>>>>>>>>>   added, it may be possible to use the same assertion to
>>>>> designate
>>>>>>>>>   the additional policy subjects without a namespace change.  
>>>>>>>>> For
>>>>>>>>>   example, a policy assertion for a protocol that is  
>>>>>>>>> originally
>>>>>>>>>   designed for endpoint policy subject may add message policy
>>>>>>>>>   subject to indicate finer granularity in the attachment
>>>>> provided
>>>>>>>>>   that endpoint policy subject is also retained in its design.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> When
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>   new policy subjects are added it is incumbent on the  
>>>>>>>>> authors to
>>>>>>>>>   retain the semantic of the policy assertion
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Since our proposal includes this text:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>   When the WS-Addressing policy assertion occurs on the
>>>>>>>>>   wsdl11:binding/wsdl11:operation element, it applies to the
>>>>>>>>>   operation policy subject. Nevertheless, it should always  
>>>>>>>>> be the
>>>>>>>>>   case that if one operation of an endpoint supports or  
>>>>>>>>> requires
>>>>>>>>>   WS-Addressing, then all operations must support or require
>>>>>>>>>   WS-Addressing (although, potentially, with different
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> restrictions)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> and the following requirement:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>   Ryyyy: /In a /*DESCRIPTION*/, if any operation of a WSDL 1.1
>>>>>>>>>   endpoint supports or requires WS-Addressing, then all the
>>>>>>>>>   operations of that endpoint MUST support or require
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> WS-Addressing./
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> /As I understand, This goes against the policy scopes/ and  
>>>>>>>> effective
>>>>>>>> policy calculation as defined in
>>>>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/REC-ws-policy-attach-20070904/#CalculatingEffe
>>>>>> ctivyPolicywithWSDL1.1
>>>>>>>> How can a policy specified at Operation policy subject affect  
>>>>>>>> the effective policy  at the Endpoint policy subject? The  
>>>>>>>> policy specified at Operation scope can add more non  
>>>>>>>> conflicting requirements to the policy specified at a higher  
>>>>>>>> level that will be effective only for that operation.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> thanks,
>>>>>>>> Rama Pulavarthi
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> it is clear that the semantics of the wsam:Addressing policy  
>>>>>>>>> assertion are being retained and thus we are adhering to the  
>>>>>>>>> guidelines described in [3].
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 3.) The claim that our proposal "disregards the existing  
>>>>>>>>> structure of the WS-AM policy assertions" and jeopardizes  
>>>>>>>>> backwards compatibility is false. As stated previously, our  
>>>>>>>>> proposal does nothing to change the structure or the  
>>>>>>>>> semantics of the wsam:Addressing assertion, it simply  
>>>>>>>>> extends where such assertions can be attached. Furthermore,  
>>>>>>>>> since it is an extension, our
>>>>> proposal
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> logically cannot affect backwards compatibility. The
>>>>> implementations
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> that interoperated at [5] should, baring any unrelated  
>>>>>>>>> changes, continue to interoperate under the same test  
>>>>>>>>> scenarios.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 4.) The assertion that this change is "substantive" is  
>>>>>>>>> subjective. The notion that this extension conflicts with  
>>>>>>>>> the existing wsam:Addressing semantics has been addressed  
>>>>>>>>> above.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The case for this proposal is straightforward: The current  
>>>>>>>>> WS-Addressing 1.0 - Metadata specification is technically
>>>>> deficient.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It does not allow you to describe an interface that contains  
>>>>>>>>> both synchronous and asynchronous operations. Input from our  
>>>>>>>>> customers indicates that this is a common and important use  
>>>>>>>>> case. The Web Services Test Forum provides an example of  
>>>>>>>>> this in its Purchase Order Service scenario (http://www.wstf.org/docs/scenarios/sc009/sc009.xml 
>>>>>>>>> ). Although
>>>>> there
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> are workarounds for this problem, they have side-effects  
>>>>>>>>> that undermine the simplicity and utility of the interface  
>>>>>>>>> description.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> One of the reasons Oracle raised this issue is the fact that  
>>>>>>>>> this technical deficiency is the result of an oversight by  
>>>>>>>>> the W3C Addressing Working Group, not the result of a  
>>>>>>>>> deliberate decision. In the WS-Addressing 1.0 - WSDL Binding  
>>>>>>>>> specification, the wsaw:Anonymous element extended the  
>>>>>>>>> wsd11:binding/wsdl11:operation element thus allowing you to  
>>>>>>>>> specify that a particular operation
>>>>> was
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> either synchronous or asynchronous. As the WSDL Binding  
>>>>>>>>> specification evolved into the Metadata specification, the  
>>>>>>>>> wsam:AnonymousResponses and wsam:NonAnonymousResponses  
>>>>>>>>> assertions (which each express a distinct value of what was  
>>>>>>>>> wsaw:Anonymous) were folded into nested assertions beneath  
>>>>>>>>> the top-level wsam:Addressing assertion. Although this  
>>>>>>>>> change was, in itself, technically correct, it had the side- 
>>>>>>>>> effect of removing the ability
>>>>>>>>> to specify synchronous/asynchronous behavior at the  
>>>>>>>>> operation level
>>>>>>>>> since , as we have discussed, wsam:Addressing can currently  
>>>>>>>>> only be
>>>>>>>>> attached to the wsdl11:port or wsdl11:binding and has  
>>>>>>>>> Endpoint Policy Subject. Our proposal seeks to correct this  
>>>>>>>>> flaw in a way that preserves the semantics of wsam:Addressing.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Finally, we brought this issue to the WS-I Basic Profiles  
>>>>>>>>> Working Group because the W3C WS-Addressing Working Group is  
>>>>>>>>> closed. Although there have been some discussions about  
>>>>>>>>> creating a group to
>>>>>>>>> maintain the WS-Addressing specifications within the W3C it  
>>>>>>>>> seems unlikely, at this time, that such a group will be  
>>>>>>>>> created. Since correcting profiled specifications has some  
>>>>>>>>> precedent in WS-I and the Basic Profile Working Group, it  
>>>>>>>>> seems to be the best place to attempt to fix this problem.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Gilbert Pilz | SOA/WS Technologist | Middleware Standards |  
>>>>>>>>> Oracle Corporation
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Monica Martin wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 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.ht
>>>>>> ml
>>>>>>>>>> [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-mu
>>>>>> ltiple-policy-subjects,
>>>>> http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/NOTE-ws-policy-primer-20071112/#versioning-pol
>>>>>> icy-language,
>>>>> http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/REC-ws-policy-attach-20070904/#CalculatingEffe
>>>>>> ctivyPolicywithWSDL1.1
>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/NOTE-ws-policy-guidelines-20071112/#versioning
>>>>>> -policy-assertions
>>>>> <http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/NOTE-%0Aws-policy-guidelines-20071112/#versio
>>>>>> ning-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
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Notice:  This email message, together with any attachments,  
>>>>>>>>>> may contain information  of  BEA Systems,  Inc.,  its  
>>>>>>>>>> subsidiaries  and  affiliated entities,  that may be  
>>>>>>>>>> confidential,  proprietary,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> copyrighted  and/or legally privileged, and is intended  
>>>>>>>>>> solely for
>>>>>>>>>> the use of the individual or entity named in this message.  
>>>>>>>>>> If you are not the intended recipient, and have received  
>>>>>>>>>> this message in error, please immediately return this by  
>>>>>>>>>> email and then delete it.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>