Re: Updated proposal for WS-Policy assertions

In the examples, s/Replies/Responses/.

Marc.

On Nov 13, 2006, at 6:40 PM, 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.
>
>

---
Marc Hadley <marc.hadley at sun.com>
CTO Office, Sun Microsystems.