W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-desc@w3.org > April 2003

Re: Quality of Service

From: <info@johanpeeters.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2003 09:10:16 -0700 (PDT)
To: mrbannon@uwaterloo.ca
Cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org, jeffsch@windows.microsoft.com
Message-Id: <20030421091018.19288.h009.c001.wm@mail.johanpeeters.com.criticalpath.net>

Thanks for the pointers Jeffrey.

I could not find any indication that WS-PolicyAttachment is affiliated to any standards body.
More's the pity, because QoP descriptions are sorely needed and I have not come across any other initiatives to address
this area.

I do not understand why QoP descriptions cannot be applied across bindings. In fact, it seems to me that
WS-PolicyAttachment does precisely that, annotating message, part, portType and operation elements.

kr,

Yo

On Thu, 17 Apr 2003 17:35:26 -0400, "Michael Ryan Bannon" wrote:

> 
> The WS-Policy Attachment leads me to another question:
> What is generally recommended as being the best method for attaching
> policies and such to WSDL and/or UDDI?
> Is WS-PolicyAttachment the only game in town?
> 
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jeffrey Schlimmer" <jeffsch@windows.microsoft.com>
> To: <info@johanpeeters.com>
> Cc: <mrbannon@uwaterloo.ca>; <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
> Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2003 2:00 PM
> Subject: RE: Quality of Service
> 
> 
> > Johan Peeters writes:
> > >There has been some discussion at the OASIS WSS TC about QoP
> > >(Quality of Protection) which I would consider as a subset
> > >of QoS. My understanding is that they are currently thinking
> > >of introducing a new binding, secure SOAP, that would have
> > >extensions allowing you to specify the QoP. Is this the way
> > >to go? I personally would hope for a more orthogonal
> > >definition of QoP (and other QoS aspects for that matter)
> >
> > Agreed.
> >
> > >I.e. a QoP can apply to a web service regardless of
> > >whether its wire format is SOAP or not. It seems to
> > >me that WS-Policy might just do that.
> >
> > WS-Security uses WS-Policy to state security requirements independent of
> > the specific port type or the underlying transport.
> >
> > http://msdn.microsoft.com/ws/2002/12/ws-security-policy/
> >
> > >But that is by-the-by. What I really want to know is this: what
> > >are the respective responsibilities of the W3C WS description
> > >WG and the OASIS WSS TC working group wrt QoP/QoS descriptions
> >
> > The W3C Web Service Description (WSDL) Working Group (WG) charter is the
> > official answer.
> >
> > http://www.w3.org/2002/01/ws-desc-charter
> >
> > The current WSDL 1.2 draft allows annotations. Annotations could be
> > defined to indicate QoP or QoS, but my guess is that the WG will not
> > define them.
> >
> > >and how will the pieces ever fit together?
> >
> > I am not intimately familiar with the charter of the Oasis WSS TC, but
> > note that WS-I has played an integration role in the past.
> >
> > http://www.ws-i.org/Profiles/Basic/2003-03/BasicProfile-1.0-BdAD.html
> >
> > >Will a WSDL 1.2 specification tell us, for example, whether a
> > >secure SOAP message is required to access a service?
> >
> > WS-PolicyAttachment defines a means to indicate within a WSDL 1.1
> > document that a service requires general policy (or security policy
> > specifically). I would be very surprised if similar mechanisms do not
> > exist for WSDL 1.2 by the time it is finalized.
> >
> > http://msdn.microsoft.com/ws/2002/12/PolicyAttachment/
> >
> > >What if the binding is not SOAP?
> >
> > If bindings are allowed to have different message data and/or processing
> > models, then it will be difficult to define annotations that can be
> > generally applied to the different architectures.
> >

Johan Peeters
Software Architecture Services
+32 16 649000
Received on Monday, 21 April 2003 12:10:24 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:23 GMT