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

Re: Quality of Service

From: Michael Ryan Bannon <mrbannon@uwaterloo.ca>
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2003 15:04:20 -0400
Message-ID: <005d01c30838$d2bf0270$445c6181@uwaterloo.ca>
To: <info@johanpeeters.com>, <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Cc: <jeffsch@windows.microsoft.com>

Thanks for the info.

Well, I honestly see no reason why I shouldn't use it.
Basically, I need to incorporate several added features into WSDL and
UDDI...the MS WS-PolicyAttachment seems like the way to go.  However I am a
novice when it comes to utilizing WSDL to its fullest.

Thanks,

Ryan

----- Original Message -----
From: <info@johanpeeters.com>
To: <mrbannon@uwaterloo.ca>
Cc: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>; <jeffsch@windows.microsoft.com>
Sent: Monday, April 21, 2003 12:10 PM
Subject: Re: Quality of Service


> 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 15:02:43 GMT

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