RE: Updated proposal for WS-Policy assertions

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of 
> Anish Karmarkar
> Sent: Monday, Nov 27, 2006 12:57 PM
> To: Marc Hadley
> Cc: public-ws-addressing@w3.org List
> Subject: Re: Updated proposal for WS-Policy assertions
> 
> 
> Hi Marc,
> 
> Few comments inlined below.
> 
> -Anish
> --
> 
> 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.
> 
> Suggestion, who not define Qnames that can be used in WSDL or 
> as policy 
> assertion?
> > 
> > (i) <wsaw:AddressingRequired/> - the endpoint requires 
> WS-Addressing, 
> > optionality can be conveyed using WS-Policy constructs.
> > 
> 
> Doesn't this duplicate the functionality of UsingAddressing?

IMO, it does. 

I think we need a single element, wsaw:UsingAddressing if backwards
compatibility is to be retained. I still do not agree with the
explanation of optionality. 

Please note that WS-Policy wg has used already this particular Qname in
examples, etc. in the primer document, guidelines document. I do not
think that the semantics is convoluted to prevent the use of the
wsaw:UsingAddressing as a policy assertion. 



> 
> It is also kinda strange to say:
> <wsaw:AddressingRequired wsp:Optional='true'/>

+1 

> 
> 
> > (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.
> > 
> 
> The idea of policy friendly wsdl extensions was to create independent 
> Qnames that are not parametrized through the use of attribute 
> values or 
> children element. Not a policy expert, but doesn't this make it less 
> policy friendly?
> 
> > (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 Monday, 27 November 2006 21:02:43 UTC