- From: Tom Rutt <tom@coastin.com>
- Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2007 12:50:23 -0400
- To: Anish Karmarkar <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com>
- Cc: "public-ws-addressing@w3.org" <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>
Anish Karmarkar wrote: > > Below is the usecase that I mentioned on the call: > > The endpoint can only send messages on the 'back-channel' it will not > open a new connection to send messages (firewall does not allow it). > The endpoint also supports (but does not require) WSRM. What this > means is: > > 1) When wsrm is not used it requires the anon URI for responses. > 2) When wsrm is used, it requires the MC template (non-anon URI per > ws-addr) for responses. > > -Anish > -- > Response senders's Policy: Policy.for.Anish.Use.case.using.Alterntative.F:. ......(explicit.support.claims,.empty.=.no.responses) <Policy> ...<ExactlyOne> ......<All> .........<wsa:Addressing>...<--.Addressing.required,.anonymous.responses.supported--> ............<Policy><wsa:AnonymousResponses./></Policy> .........</wsa:Addressing> ......</All> ......<All> .........<wsa:Addressing>..<--Addressing.required,.NonAnon.Responses.supported--> ............<Policy><wsa:NonAnonymousResponses./></Policy> .........</wsa:Addressing> .........<wsrmp:RMAssertion.>..<--.RM.required.--> ............<wsp:Policy>. ...............<--..any.nested.policy.is.asserted.here.--> ............</wsp:Policy>. .........</wsrmp:RMAssertion> ........<wsmc:MCSupported/>..<--.Make.Connection.URI.required.for.responses--> ......</All> ...</ExactlyOne> </Policy> Policy.for.Anish.Use.Case.using.Alternative.G.(empty implies both response types supported, nested assertion implies explicit requirement for one response type) would.be.the.same.as.with.alternative.F: ---------------------------------------------------- Tom Rutt email: tom@coastin.com; trutt@us.fujitsu.com Tel: +1 732 801 5744 Fax: +1 732 774 5133
Received on Friday, 23 March 2007 16:50:51 UTC