Re: Updated proposal for WS-Policy assertions

Nit, but an important one:  "Send replies" should be "send responses"
and -- of course -- we should be sure to say explicitly somewhere that
"response" means "reply or fault".  The examples also need to be updated.

Marc Hadley wrote:
> The first part of the proposal is to remove the current wsaw:Anonymous
> WSDL marker. I think we might need to tweak the section describing the
> UsingAddressing marker to include the following text (modified to
> remove mentions of policy and anonymous) from the section describing
> the wsaw:Anonymous marker:
>
> "A WSDL-based service description that includes the
> wsaw:UsingAddressing makes no assertion regarding a requirement or a
> constraint in the use of the anonymous URI in EPRs contained in
> messages sent to the endpoint."
>
> The current text for UsingAddressing could be taken to imply that
> endpoints using it explicitly support anon and non-anon addresses but
> I think the intent is that UsingAddressing makes no claim about the
> types of address supported.
>
> The second part of the proposal is to define three new elements for
> use in WS-Policy.
>
> (i) <wsaw:AddressingRequired/> - the endpoint requires WS-Addressing,
> optionality can be conveyed using WS-Policy constructs.
>
> (ii) <wsaw:AnonymousResponses/> (a child element of
> <wsaw:AddressingRequired>) - the endpoint can send replies using WS-A
> anonymous; the endpoint can't send to anon if not present.
>
> (iii) <wsaw:NonAnonymousResponses/> (a child element of
> <wsaw:AddressingRequired>) - the endpoint can send replies using other
> addresses; the endpoint can't send to other addresses if not present
> (unless some other assertion adds a class of supported addresses).
>
> Element (iii) is deliberately vague, its presence means that a
> non-anon address might work but doesn't constrain what such an address
> might look like - a receiver can still reject an address that it
> doesn't grok or that requires a binding it doesn't support. The WG
> decided against specifying things like available response bindings so
> I think this is in line with that decision.
>
> Here are some examples:
>
> <wsp:Policy>
>   <wsaw:AddressingRequired>
>     <wsaw:AnonymousReplies/>
>   </wsaw:AddressingRequired>
> </wsp:Policy>
>
> Means that addressing is required and only anonymous replies are
> supported.
>
> <wsp:Policy>
>   <wsaw:AddressingRequired>
>     <wsaw:NonAnonymousReplies/>
>   </wsaw:AddressingRequired>
> </wsp:Policy>
>
> Means that addressing is required and only non-anonymous replies are
> supported.
>
> <wsp:Policy>
>   <wsaw:AddressingRequired>
>     <wsaw:AnonymousReplies/>
>     <wsaw:NonAnonymousReplies/>
>   </wsaw:AddressingRequired>
> </wsp:Policy>
>
> Means that addressing is required and both anonymous and non-anonymous
> replies are supported.
>
> <wsp:Policy>
>   <wsaw:AddressingRequired/>
> </wsp:Policy>
>
> Wouldn't be too useful for anything other than a one-way message since
> neither anonymous nor non-anonymouse replies are supported.
>
> <wsp:Policy>
>   <wsaw:AddressingRequired>
>     <wsaw:AnonymousReplies/>
>     <wsfoo:AnonReplies/>
>   </wsaw:AddressingRequired>
> </wsp:Policy>
>
> Means that addressing is required and that anon replies as defined by
> WS-Addr or WS-Foo are supported.
>
> Marc.
>
> ---
> Marc Hadley <marc.hadley at sun.com>
> CTO Office, Sun Microsystems.
>
>

Received on Tuesday, 14 November 2006 16:37:11 UTC