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

They are certainly related.  The new issue, though, contains a proposal 
based on
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-resource-access/2009Aug/0033.html 
which we agreed to on
http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/ra/9/08/2009-08-18.html.  Perhaps we should 
add this proposal to 6406.
All the best, Ashok


Asir Vedamuthu wrote:
>> Now, we need to apply this direction to MEX to indicate whether MEX is supported and which MEX features are supported
>>     
>
> Is this a duplicate of issue 6406?
>
> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6406 
>
> Regards,
>
> Asir S Vedamuthu
> Microsoft Corporation
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-ws-resource-access-request@w3.org [mailto:public-ws-resource-access-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of ashok malhotra
> Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2009 11:12 AM
> To: public-ws-resource-access@w3.org
> Subject: NEW ISSUE: Attaching Policy to Indicate MEX/MEX Features Supported
>
> 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.
>  
>

Received on Sunday, 27 September 2009 17:36:13 UTC