RE: First cut policy write up

David's understanding of the semantics of the wsaw:UsingAddressing policy
assertion is in line with my intentions in describing it and (I hope) in
line with what the group decided on the 11/27 concall.

As I recall, we decided that "UsingAddressing" always has one meaning which
is that WS-Addr is "supported". When used as a WSDL extension in conjunction
with 'wsdl:required="true"' it means that WS-Addr is required. Unfortunately
there doesn't seem to be a way of both keeping the semantics of
"UsingAddressing" constant across its use as a WSDL extension and a policy
assertion *and* allowing the WS-Policy variation to express that the use of
WS-Addr is required. I thought we had discussed this and agreed that we
would have to live with it. If you really need to express the fact that
WS-Addr is required for an endpoint you will have to use
wsaw:UsingAddressing as a WSDL extension and mark it with

As for nested policy assertions, again, I thought we had discussed this and
decided that they were too complicated. I now think we were a bit premature
in that decision and I agree that nested policy assertions work best for
expressing the relationship between the broad "UsingAddressing" assertion
and the narrower "AnonymousReponses" and "NonAnonymousResponse".

- gp

"too forward and one back
 blind fingers groping for the right track"

> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Illsley [] 
> Sent: Monday, December 04, 2006 4:40 AM
> To: Yalcinalp, Umit
> Cc: Gilbert Pilz;
> Subject: RE: First cut policy write up
> Comments below.
> wrote on 12/01/2006 10:34:05 PM:
> > > I spent a while yesterday going over this proposal with 
> Katy, Paco, 
> > > and our WS-Policy development team and we have a couple 
> of concerns.
> > > 
> > > 1. There is no way to mandate addressing in this proposal i.e. In 
> > > normal form (once the wsp:Optionals etc have been expanded) the 
> > > presence of wsaw:UsingAddressing only indicates addressing is 
> > > supported.
> > > We need a way
> > > to say addressing is required. I don't have a proposal 
> yet to deal 
> > > with this.
> > > 
> > 
> > I am really not following this point. Could you clarify? 
> > 
> > If you do not use wsp:optional and use the standard attachment 
> > mechanisms, why wouldn't WS-Addressing be NOT required.
> > 
> > IF there is no alternative in the policy, the intersection 
> algorithm 
> > and thus the client will treat WS-Addressing assertion as 
> an addition 
> > that it needs to understood and thus make behavior required.
> > 
> I agree that in those circumstances, the UsingAddressing 
> assertion would be required for the client.
> However, the example states:
> > > <wsp:Policy>
> > >   <wsaw:UsingAddressing>
> > > </wsp:Policy>
> > > This policy indicates that the subject supports the use of
> WS-Addressing. 
> It explicitly does not say that inclusion of UsingAddressing in an 
> alternative mandates the use of WS-Addressing, merely that it is 
> supported, hence the concern.
> David

Received on Monday, 4 December 2006 19:15:50 UTC