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

NEW ISSUE: Attaching Policy to Indicate MEX/MEX Features Supported

From: ashok malhotra <ashok.malhotra@oracle.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2009 11:11:49 -0700
Message-ID: <4ABBB665.5030407@oracle.com>
To: "public-ws-resource-access@w3.org" <public-ws-resource-access@w3.org>
On the August 18 Telcon (see minutes 
http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/ra/9/08/2009-08-18.html)
We agreed to a direction re. using Policy on endpoints based  on my  
note: 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-resource-access/2009Aug/0033.html
This note made 2 points:

1. Endpoint policy is contained within the Metadata child of the EPR as 
recommended by WS-Addressing

<wsa:EndpointReference>
   <wsa:Address>xs:anyURI</wsa:Address>
   <wsa:ReferenceParameters>xs:any*</wsa:ReferenceParameters>
   <wsa:Metadata>
     *( <wsp:Policy ...> ... </wsp:Policy> |
         <wsp:PolicyReference ...> ... </wsp:PolicyReference> )?*
       ...
   </wsa:Metadata>
</wsa:EndpointReference>

2. In WS-RA the use of Policy is primarily to indicate Endpoint 
capabilities.  To allow domain independent processing, each capability MUST be 
indicated by a policy assertion with a unique QName i.e. the assertion QName indicates 
the capability.

Now, we need to apply this direction to MEX to indicate whether MEX is 
supported and which MEX features are supported
.
Clearly, the above points need to be applied to other specs as well.  
For example,
how RM assertions are attached to the NotifyTo EPR for eventing, but 
these issues need to be raised independently.
 
-- 
All the best, Ashok
Received on Thursday, 24 September 2009 18:13:55 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 18 December 2010 18:18:13 GMT