W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-resource-access@w3.org > December 2009

Re: Bug 6463: Attaching Policy to WS-Mex GetMetadata - Marked up proposal

From: Gilbert Pilz <gilbert.pilz@oracle.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2009 13:37:34 -0800
Message-ID: <4B2BF61E.7070709@oracle.com>
To: Katy Warr <katy_warr@uk.ibm.com>
CC: Asir Vedamuthu <asirveda@microsoft.com>, "public-ws-resource-access@w3.org" <public-ws-resource-access@w3.org>
Katy,

A silly, minor nit: The first sentence of Section 8 reads "This 
specification provides several mechanisms to aid service endpoints and 
service requesters in bootstrapping the interaction." The interaction of 
what?

Below Example 8-2 is says: "The WS-MetadataExchange WSDL is embedded 
(lines 09-23) and contains the policy attached to the binding for the 
GetMetadata operation (line 18)." It would be more accurate to say:

"The WS-MetadataExchange WSDL is imported (lines 15-16) and an 
additional binding is defined (lines 17-21). This additional binding 
contains a reference to a policy (line 18). This policy applies to the 
GetMetadata operation"

Finally the last sentence "As an alternative to using MetadataLocation 
(lines 17-20), the WS-MetadataExchange WSDL containing the appropriately 
attached policy could have been embedded directly into the 
MetadataSection" makes no sense to me. It seems to me that the point of 
lines 13-22 is to indicate that you can do a WS-Transfer Get on 
"http://services.example.org/stockquote/metadata" and expect to get a 
mex:Metadata document. How would including the WS-MetdataExchange WSDL 
"containing the appropriately attached policy" do this? Since we are 
talking about using WS-Transfer it doesn't seem like the WS-MEX WSDL has 
any bearing on the matter.

- gp

On 12/15/2009 3:07 AM, Katy Warr wrote:
>
> Hi Asir
>
> Thanks for your comments.
>
> > We are afraid that the proposed Example 8-1 does not provide 
> sufficient protocol binding information to allow requesters to issue a 
> GetMetadata request against a service endpoint. For instance, how can 
> a requester infer what is the version of SOAP? What is the underlying 
> protocol transport?
>
> We can exploit the fact that the WS-Metadata Endpoint is the same as 
> the application endpoint  (that the EPR represents) and therefore 
> would share its protocol binding information.  Hence, in this case, I 
> don't think we require this information (it may be defaulted to).
>
> > We think that the WS-MetadataExchange specification should provide 
> an example that provides sufficient binding information, including 
> policies (to address issue 6463), to bootstrap.
>
> > The description of the alternative sounds right. But, example 7.1 
> describes how to embed service metadata within an EPR. These are two 
> different use cases. It might help to show case an example that 
> illustrates how to embed a bootstrap binding in an EPR and how to 
> attach a policy expression (to address issue 6463) to the bootstrap 
> binding.
>
> How about the attached update?  I've taken your example (from a 
> previous email) and included it as example 8.2.  I have made some 
> minor changes (the Identifier and tns on line 10 - let me know if I 
> got this wrong).  I've also added so explanation below the example for 
> your review/comments and made some very minor tweaks to the other 
> explanations to ensure that the explanations were consistent and that 
> the text flows ok.
>
> Regards,
> Katy
>
>
>
>
> From: 	Asir Vedamuthu <asirveda@microsoft.com>
> To: 	Katy Warr/UK/IBM@IBMGB, "public-ws-resource-access@w3.org" 
> <public-ws-resource-access@w3.org>
> Date: 	14/12/2009 17:13
> Subject: 	RE: Bug 6463: Attaching Policy to WS-Mex GetMetadata - 
> Marked up proposal
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> Thanks Katy.
>  
> Here are some initial comments on the proposal.
>  
> >In Example 8-1, a [WS-Addressing] endpoint reference to a service 
> endpoint contains the metadata to allow requesters to issue a 
> GetMetadata request against it
>  
> We are afraid that the proposed Example 8-1 does not provide 
> sufficient protocol binding information to allow requesters to issue a 
> GetMetadata request against a service endpoint. For instance, how can 
> a requester infer what is the version of SOAP? What is the underlying 
> protocol transport?
>  
> We think that the WS-MetadataExchange specification should provide an 
> example that provides sufficient binding information, including 
> policies (to address issue 6463), to bootstrap.
>  
> >As an alternative to using MetadataLocation (lines 08-17), the 
> WS-MetadataExchange WSDL containing the appropriately attached policy 
> could have been embedded directly into the MetadataSection.  The 
> embedded WSDL approach was used in example Example 7.1 to pass 
> metadata in the EPR.
>  
> The description of the alternative sounds right. But, example 7.1 
> describes how to embed service metadata within an EPR. These are two 
> different use cases. It might help to show case an example that 
> illustrates how to embed a bootstrap binding in an EPR and how to 
> attach a policy expression (to address issue 6463) to the bootstrap 
> binding.
>  
> We will be more than happy to work with Katy to prepare a revised 
> proposal.
>  
> Regards,
>  
> Asir S Vedamuthu
> Microsoft Corporation
>  
> *From:* public-ws-resource-access-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:public-ws-resource-access-request@w3.org] *On Behalf Of *Katy 
> Warr*
> Sent:* Monday, December 07, 2009 10:42 AM*
> To:* public-ws-resource-access@w3.org; Asir Vedamuthu*
> Subject:* Bug 6463: Attaching Policy to WS-Mex GetMetadata - Marked up 
> proposal
>  
>
> Following my action to create a markup version of the proposal for bug 
> _http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6463_, please find the 
> marked up document attached.  The changes are all in Section 8 (and an 
> example is moved from section 7).
>
>
>
> Asir,
>
> The difference between your example and my previous one is primarily 
> that you have embedded the WSDL metadata within the EPR, rather than 
> using Policy Attachments.  
>
> Whilst both approaches work, I believe that we should have a wider 
> variation of examples within the specification in order to illustrate 
> different features and usage scenarios. From my experience, a wide 
> range of examples is of great benefit to developers.  Embedded WSDL is 
> already illustrated in example 7-1.  
>
> In this particular example (8.1), policy attachments also work very 
> well as it provides a mechanism to associate policy with a single 
> operation without having the whole WSDL included within the EPR.
>
> As a suggested compromise, I've included the policy attachments 
> example (8-1) in the proposal attached to this mail, but added a 
> detailed explanation below it in order to aid understanding.  I have 
> also added some text to say that the WSDL could be embedded, as an 
> alternative approach.
>
> Regards
> Katy
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>  
>
> /Unless stated otherwise above:
> IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with 
> number 741598.
> Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 
> 3AU/
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> /
> /
>
> /Unless stated otherwise above:
> IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with 
> number 741598.
> Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 
> 3AU/
>
>
>
>
>
>


Received on Friday, 18 December 2009 21:39:06 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 18 December 2010 18:18:16 GMT