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

RE: [Bug 3656] Using UsingAddressing Extension Element as aWS-Policy assertion

From: Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2006 08:03:43 -0400
To: Asir Vedamuthu <asirveda@microsoft.com>
Cc: public-ws-policy@w3.org
Message-Id: <1157976223.11328.18.camel@localhost>

On Sun, 2006-09-10 at 20:39 -0700, Asir Vedamuthu wrote:
> > One reason would be timing, which why I only proposed
> 
> I suggest that we discuss the timing at the F2F.

I won't be at the f2f but my main purpose in this group is to get a
recommendation on what the addressing folks should do, so I'm fine with
this being discussed at the f2f.

> > Do we have wordings on this in one of the policy documents?
> 
> Not sure what we can say in the policy drafts. I am afraid that any such
> statement crosses spec boundaries.

Well, someone has to say this if we want implementers to follow your
suggestion. It can't certainly be WSDL and we can expect the developers
to read this mailing list before implementing the spec. Doing nothing
will only lead to confusion. It ought to be documented in the policy
specs, probably in the WSDL part of the attachment spec. Besides your
suggestion, we can say:
- don't mix WSDL extensions and WS-Policy, ie if your extension has a
corresponding policy assertion, then you should only use the policy
assertion if Policy is engaged.
- ignore all WSDL extensions when Policy is engaged.

The inconvenient of the last approach is of course the limitation
introduced in the Web services stack, which would force us to bend
Policy later on to use extensions that don't necessarily have a place
there.

Philippe
Received on Monday, 11 September 2006 12:04:14 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:20:41 GMT