- From: Fabian Ritzmann <Fabian.Ritzmann@Sun.COM>
- Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2007 14:50:45 +0200
- To: tom@coastin.com
- Cc: WS-Addressing <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>, ws policy <public-ws-policy@w3.org>
Hi, A comment regarding alternatives A and B. Absence of an assertion implying prohibition is not supported by the WS-Policy framework. See issue 3602: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=3602 This would be a domain-specific redefinition that introduces an undesirable special case. Fabian Tom Rutt wrote: > I thought it would be good to close my action Item from WS addressing > WG with this > summary of my 4 proposed solutions. (I now prefer alterntiave D) > > Alternatives A through C would rely on multiple policy alternatives to > indicate that a response sender can use either Anonymous or > Non-anonymous Replies. > > Alternative A: > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2007Mar/0017.html > > > Summary: Define AnonymousResponses and NonAnonymous responses as > requirements for sending responses. NonAnonymous EPR address is > anything other than wsa:Anonymous URI. > Missing nested assertion within an Anonymous assertion implies > prohibition for that alternative. > (one problem with Alternative A is that missing nested assertion has > same meaning as presence of the other nested assertion, since > NonAnonymous URI is a uri which is NOT Anonymous) > > Alternative B: > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2007Feb/0016.html > > > Summary: Define AnonymousResponses and NonAnonymous responses as > requirements for sending responses. NonAnonymous EPR address is > defined as any "connectable" URI.. > Missing nested assertion within an Anonymous assertion implies > prohibition for that alternative. > (one problem with Alternative B is difficulty in defining > "connectable" URI in a transport independent manner) > > Alternative C: > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2007Mar/0016.html > > > Summary: Define AnonymousResponses and NonAnonymous responses as > requirements for sending responses. NonAnonymous EPR address is > defined as anything other than wsa:Anonynous URI.. Missing nested > assertion within an Anonymous assertion has no meaning with respect to > use of response URIs. > > > Alternative D: > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2007Mar/0018.html > > > Summary: Remove nested policy assertions for wsa:Addressing assertion. > > I personally could live with either alternative D or C, but prefer > Alternative D. > If we pick Alternative C, I see the only practical thing for a > response sender to put in its policy is three alternatives (one for > addressing with nonAnon repolies, another for addressing with anon > replies, and another with addressing showing no nested policy > assertion). However this is no better than saying that addressing is > supported. > > If we select Alternatives A , B, or C, we should probable add text > stating that the policy attached to a response sender subject pertains > to individual instances of responses. Also clarify that if > alternatives exist for either non anon or anon, that different > response EPRs in the same requiest can obey any of the allowed > alternatives. > -- Fabian Ritzmann Sun Microsystems, Inc. Stella Business Park Phone +358-9-525 562 96 Lars Sonckin kaari 12 Fax +358-9-525 562 52 02600 Espoo Email Fabian.Ritzmann@Sun.COM Finland
Received on Tuesday, 6 March 2007 12:52:35 UTC