Re: Alternative Proposal for WS-Policy Assertions

How would you characterize the advantages of "opt-out" vs "opt-in" ?  
Less assertions in the case of full support ?

We got to the "opt-in" approach during the last telcon as a way of  
avoiding the problems that <Anonymous>required</Anonymous> causes for  
other specs that might want to define their own anon-like addresses  
while preserving the specificity of the assertion. Your  
<wsaw:NoNonAnonymousReplies/> (which includes anon addresses defined  
outside of WS-A) seems to share the problem of being non- 
deterministic wrt to WS-A processing that loosening the semantics of  
<Anonymous>required</Anonymous> would entail.

Marc.


On Nov 14, 2006, at 2:50 PM, David Orchard wrote:

>
> I've taken MarcH's Updated Proposal and done a substantial change  
> to the
> proposal.  I'll characterize MarcH's proposal as the "opt-in" style,
> where the default is nothing specified and the assertions have to be
> added to opt-in.  An alternative is the "opt-out" style, where the
> default is everything is specified and the assertions are to opt-out.
>
> This proposal defines three new elements for use in WS-Policy.
>
> (i) <wsaw:AddressingRequired/> - the endpoint requires WS-Addressing,
> optionality can be conveyed using WS-Policy constructs.  By default,
> Anonymous
> Responses and Non Anonymous Responses are supported.
>
> (ii) <wsaw:NoAnonymousResponses/> (a child element of
> <wsaw:AddressingRequired>) - the endpoint cannot send replies using  
> WS-A
> or
> other anonymous; the endpoint can send to any anon if not present.
>
> (iii) <wsaw:NoNonAnonymousResponses/> (a child element of
> <wsaw:AddressingRequired>) - the endpoint cannot send replies using
> other addresses; the endpoint can send to other addresses if not
> present (unless some other assertion adds a class of supported
> addresses). Note: The "NoNon" is a bit strange but it works in this
> case.
>
> Here are some examples:
>
> <wsp:Policy>
>    <wsaw:AddressingRequired/>
> </wsp:Policy>
>
> Means that addressing is required and both anonymous and non-anonymous
> replies are supported.
>
> <wsp:Policy>
>    <wsaw:AddressingRequired>
>      <wsaw:NoAnonymousReplies/>
>    </wsaw:AddressingRequired>
> </wsp:Policy>
>
> Means that addressing is required and only non-anonymous replies are
> supported.
>
> <wsp:Policy>
>    <wsaw:AddressingRequired>
>      <wsaw:NoNonAnonymousReplies/>
>    </wsaw:AddressingRequired>
> </wsp:Policy>
>
> Means that addressing is required and only anonymous replies are
> Supported, this includes anonymous replies defined by other
> specifications.
>
> <wsp:Policy>
>    <wsaw:AddressingRequired>
>      <wsaw:NoNonAnonymousReplies/>
>      <wsfoo:NoNonAnonymousReplies/>
>    </wsaw:AddressingRequired>
> </wsp:Policy>
>
> Means that addressing is required and anonymous replies other than  
> those
>
> defined by wsfoo are supported.
>
> <wsp:Policy>
>    <wsaw:AddressingRequired>
>      <wsaw:NoAnonymousReplies/>
>      <wsaw:NoNonAnonymousReplies/>
>      <wsfoo:NoAnonymousReplies/>
>    </wsaw:AddressingRequired
> </wsp:Policy>
>
> Means that addressing is required and anonymous replies other than  
> those
>
> defined by wsfoo are supported.
>
> <wsp:Policy>
>    <wsaw:AddressingRequired>
>      <wsaw:NoAnonymousReplies/>
>      <wsaw:NoNonAnonymousReplies/>
>    </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:NoAnonymousReplies/>
>      <wsaw:NoNonAnonymousReplies/>
>      <wsfoo:AnonymousReplies/>
>    </wsaw:AddressingRequired
> </wsp:Policy>
>
> Means that addressing is required and only wsfoo anonymous replies
> are supported.
>
> Cheers,
> Dave
>

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