RE: Updated proposal for WS-Policy assertions

But where?
Other specs can certainly put what they want in their own policy
assertions.
And, yes, I have been keeping folks in RX up to date; one of them was
lurking on the call yesterday.
-bob

-----Original Message-----
From: David Hull [mailto:dmh@tibco.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2006 1:43 PM
To: Bob Freund
Cc: Marc Goodner; Marc Hadley; public-ws-addressing@w3.org
Subject: Re: Updated proposal for WS-Policy assertions

Isn't our responsibility here just to ensure that other folks can
reasonably easily plug in their own markers, understanding that they
must define the semantics of those markers and consider whether it makes
sense to plug them in?

If so, then (say) RM anon makes a nice sanity check to make sure we got
it right, but we have no obligation to chase down every last issue with
it.  Rather, it's just the neighborly thing to do to make sure that
(say) WS-RX and we are both convinced the scheme is workable.


Bob Freund wrote:
> I think that Mr. Hadley, (now that we have two Marcs), suggested an
> extensibility point for use by potential future uses of WS-A.
> I cannot imagine how we can describe the semantics of uses made by
other
> specifications unless we start a meta-spec which may take us down a
road
> similar to Russell's paradox ( e.g. A set of anonURIs that is not a
> member of the set of anonURIs)
> I think we have been indirectly wrestling with this in a way.
> -bob
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org
> [mailto:public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Marc Goodner
> Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2006 11:32 AM
> To: Marc Hadley; public-ws-addressing@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Updated proposal for WS-Policy assertions
>
>
> It occurs to me we should not waste any more time worrying about
> <wsfoo:AnonReplies/> as we struck the text asking others to define
their
> own anon URIs. We shouldn't close one invitation and then offer
another.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org
> [mailto:public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Marc Hadley
> Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 3:41 PM
> To: public-ws-addressing@w3.org List
> Subject: Updated proposal for WS-Policy assertions
>
> 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 19:04:12 UTC