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

RE: ISSUE (3639) Which policy alternative was selected?

From: Daniel Roth <Daniel.Roth@microsoft.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2006 09:57:19 -0700
To: Ashok Malhotra <ashok.malhotra@oracle.com>, "public-ws-policy@w3.org" <public-ws-policy@w3.org>
Message-ID: <E2903CF1E4B5B144B559237FDFB291CE1816880E@NA-EXMSG-C117.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>

> In case multiple alternatives apply, create an endpoint that supports
> exactly one policy alternative.

We actually do support cases where an endpoint has multiple policy alternatives attached to it.  Our product ensures that we only publish multiple alternatives on an endpoint when it is obvious from the wire which alternative is selected.

Daniel Roth

-----Original Message-----
From: public-ws-policy-request@w3.org [mailto:public-ws-policy-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Ashok Malhotra
Sent: Friday, October 06, 2006 3:14 PM
To: public-ws-policy@w3.org
Subject: ISSUE (3639) Which policy alternative was selected?


My original motivation in raising this issue was to provide a rationale for why we
wanted a pointer from the message to the policy (alternative) that was applied to it.  (There are
other reasons why such a pointer may be useful, for example if the policy changes
during the course of a long-running transaction, or to indicate policies or assertions
which do not affect the wire format of messages - bug 3789.)

At the f2f in Bellevue the WG said:
1. You can add such a pointer to a msg using the SOAP extensibility mechanism but
2. The WG did not want to standardize such a header as it raised all manner of questions such "shd this
be the first header."

Subsequently, Dan Roth told the WG http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2006Oct/0043.html
that Microsoft products used the following solutions:
1. In case multiple alternatives apply, create an endpoint that supports exactly one policy alternative.
2. Use an out-of-band mechanism to convey which alternative was selected.  In effect, this uses an out-of-band
mechanism instead of the pointer in the message that I wanted.

So, at this point I am willing to agree to close the issue with no action.
If others feel differently please propose the solution you would like.


All the best, Ashok
Received on Monday, 9 October 2006 16:57:41 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:20:42 GMT