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: Katy Warr <katy_warr@uk.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2009 10:34:03 +0000
To: Gilbert Pilz <gilbert.pilz@oracle.com>
Cc: Asir Vedamuthu <asirveda@microsoft.com>, "public-ws-resource-access@w3.org" <public-ws-resource-access@w3.org>, public-ws-resource-access-request@w3.org
Message-ID: <OFC142D0E9.702CD37A-ON80257694.0039E38E-80257694.003A0D9C@uk.ibm.com>
Thanks Gil
Final one is a typo - it should read WS-Transfer WSDL (I think I cut/paste 
it from the previous example).
Katy



From:
Gilbert Pilz <gilbert.pilz@oracle.com>
To:
Katy Warr/UK/IBM@IBMGB
Cc:
Asir Vedamuthu <asirveda@microsoft.com>, 
"public-ws-resource-access@w3.org" <public-ws-resource-access@w3.org>
Date:
18/12/2009 21:48
Subject:
Re: Bug 6463: Attaching Policy to WS-Mex GetMetadata - Marked up proposal



Sorry, about this delayed message. I sometimes lose context when catching 
up on old email. The following should be input into Asir's forthcoming 
proposal. Asir also already noticed that the last line was incorrect.

- gp

On 12/18/2009 1:37 PM, Gilbert Pilz wrote: 
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 













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 Tuesday, 22 December 2009 10:34:41 GMT

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