- From: Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
- Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2005 17:14:55 -0800
- To: <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>
The WSDL Binding specification defines both a WSDL extension and a SOAP module for indicating the use of WS-Addressing. Other WS specs that Microsoft is implementing such as WS-ReliableMessaging, WS-AtomicTransactions, and the various security specifications all rely on policy assertions to indicate the use of their respective features. In the long term, we'd like to use policy assertions consistently to represent all these SOAP extensions. As a result, Microsoft sees a need for a policy assertion indicating WS-Addressing is in use. Our preference is to use this marker as the primary flag rather than either the WSDL extension or the SOAP module even within our short-term products. In other standards groups like the OASIS WS-RX TC, the policy assertions are developed alongside the spec, by the same experts and on the same timeline. If we were starting WS-Addressing today, I believe we would push for a similar ownership regime within the WS-Addressing WG, rather than relying on external groups to define such policy assertions after the fact. Ideally, we would like to see the wsaw:UsingAddressing element converted to a policy assertion rather than a WSDL extension. The semantics of this assertion/extension should be virtually identical to what we'd need (although it's currently more complicated than we'd prefer), describing the engagement of Addressing, the setting of the action values, and the consequences on the MEPs. The main change would be to explicitly describe the element as a policy extension. Some simplification might be obtained since the WS-Policy framework defines wsp:Optional through a mechanical transformation, reducing the amount of prose needed to describe the optional behavior currently defined for wsdl:required="false". Secondarily, we'd like the use as a policy assertion sanctioned as on option in the spec alongside the WSDL extension. We recognize this request poses some timeline challenges, in developing a version-neutral policy assertion prior to standardization of the policy framework, but feel these issues are tractable.
Received on Friday, 2 December 2005 01:15:05 UTC