- From: Prasad Yendluri via cvs-syncmail <cvsmail@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 07 May 2007 20:01:36 +0000
- To: public-ws-policy-eds@w3.org
Update of /sources/public/2006/ws/policy
In directory hutz:/tmp/cvs-serv638
Modified Files:
ws-policy-guidelines.xml
Log Message:
Updated 5.6 WSDL guidelines section, to follow the new format and added G15, G16, G17 and G18. Accounts for parts of resolution for issue 3989 corresponding to editors' action items 232, 253, and 256.
Index: ws-policy-guidelines.xml
===================================================================
RCS file: /sources/public/2006/ws/policy/ws-policy-guidelines.xml,v
retrieving revision 1.65
retrieving revision 1.66
diff -u -d -r1.65 -r1.66
--- ws-policy-guidelines.xml 1 May 2007 23:24:57 -0000 1.65
+++ ws-policy-guidelines.xml 7 May 2007 20:01:34 -0000 1.66
@@ -1085,13 +1085,22 @@
<div2 id="levels-of-abstraction">
- <head>Levels of Abstraction in WSDL </head>
+ <head>Considerations for Policy Attachment in WSDL </head>
<p>A behavior identified by a policy assertion applies to the
associated policy subject. If a policy assertion is to be used
- within WSDL, Assertion Authors must specify a WSDL
- policy subject. The policy subject is determined with respect
- to a behavior as follows:
+ within WSDL, assertion authors must specify a WSDL
+ policy subject.
</p>
+ <p role="practice" id="bp-WSDL-policy-subject">
+ <quote>An assertion description should specify a policy subject</quote>
+ <quote>Assertion authors should associate assertions with the appropriate policy subject.
+ For instance, if a policy assertion is to be used with WSDL, the assertion description
+ should specify a WSDL policy subject – such as service, endpoint, operation and message.
+ </quote>
+ </p>
+
+ <p>The specific WSDL policy subject is determined with respect to
+ a behavior as follows:</p>
<ulist>
<item>
<p>If the behavior applies to any message exchange
@@ -1111,41 +1120,26 @@
the subject is the message policy subject - similarly for output and fault message policy subjects.</p>
</item>
</ulist>
- <p>Assertion Authors that wish to utilize WSDL policy subjects need to understand how the assertions will be
+ <p>Assertion authors that wish to utilize WSDL policy subjects need to
+ understand how the assertions will be
processed in intersection and merging and the implications of
the processing for considering a specific attachment point and
policy subject. This topic is considered in detail in <bibref ref="WS-Policy-Primer"/>
</p>
- <p>The current set of subjects as mapped to the WSDL 1.1
- elements, can also constrain the assertion constructs. For Example, In WS-RM,
- the Assertion Authors chose to support certain capabilities at
- the endpoint level. This resulted in the finer granularity of
- the assertion to apply at the message policy subject, but the
- assertion semantics also indicates that the if
- a sender chose to engage RM
- semantics (although not specified via attachment in WSDL at incoming
- messages), the providers will honor the engagement of RM.
- This is illustrative of how the
- assertion author can specify additional constraints and
- assumptions for attachment and engagement of behavior.
- </p>
- <p>If the capability is not really suitable and may imply
- different semantics with respect to attachment points, the
- Assertion Authors should consider the following</p>
- <ulist>
- <item>
- <p> Decompose the semantics with several assertions </p>
- </item>
- <item>
- <p> Rewrite a single assertion targeting a specific subject. </p>
- </item>
- </ulist>
+
+ <p role="practice" id="bp-WSDL-policy-subject-Granularity">
+ <quote>Granularity of policy subjects</quote>
+ <quote>Assertion authors should choose the most granular policy subject
+ that the behavior represented by a policy assertion applies to.
+ </quote>
+ </p>
+
<p> For a given WSDL policy subject, there may be several
attachment points. For example, there are three attachment
points for the endpoint policy subject: the port, binding and
- portType element. Assertion Authors should identify the
+ portType element. Assertion authors should identify the
relevant attachment point when defining a new assertion. To
- determine the relevant attachment points, Assertion Authors should
+ determine the relevant attachment points, assertion authors should
consider the scope of the attachment point. For example, an
assertion should only be allowed in the portType element if
the assertion reasonably applies to any endpoint that ever
@@ -1161,18 +1155,67 @@
than to a fine granular policy subject. For instance, it is
convenient to attach a supporting token assertion (defined by
the Web Services Security Policy specification) to an endpoint
- policy subject instead of a message policy subject. Similarly,
- for authoring convenience, an assertion author may allow the
+ policy subject instead of a message policy subject.
+ </p>
+
+ <p role="practice" id="bp-WSDL-multiple-policy-subjects">
+ <quote>Assertion attachment to multiple policy subjects</quote>
+ <quote>If an assertion is allowed to be associated with multiple policy
+ subjects, the assertion description should describe the semantics of multiple
+ instances of the same assertion attached to multiple policy subjects
+ at the same time.
+ </quote>
+ </p>
+
+ <p>
+ For authoring convenience, an assertion author may allow the
association of an assertion to multiple policy subjects. If an
assertion is allowed to be associated with multiple policy
- subjects then <emph>the assertion author has the burden to
- describe the semantics of multiple instances of the same
- assertion attached to multiple policy subjects at the same
- time in order to avoid conflicting behavior. </emph>
+ subjects as is possible with WSDL, then the assertion author has
+ the burden to describe the semantics of multiple instances of the
+ same assertion attached to multiple policy subjects at the same
+ time in order to avoid conflicting behavior.
</p>
- <p>One approach is to specify a policy subject, choose the
- most granular policy subject that the behavior applies to and
- specify a preferred attachment point in WSDL. However, this
+
+ <p>If the capability is not really suitable and may imply
+ different semantics with respect to attachment points, the
+ assertion authors should consider the following</p>
+ <ulist>
+ <item>
+ <p> Decompose the semantics with several assertions.</p>
+ </item>
+ <item>
+ <p> Rewrite a single assertion targeting a specific subject. </p>
+ </item>
+ </ulist>
+
+ <p>The current set of subjects as mapped to the WSDL 1.1
+ elements, can also constrain the assertion constructs.
+ For Example, in WS-RM,
+ the assertion authors chose to support certain capabilities at
+ the endpoint level. This resulted in the finer granularity of
+ the assertion to apply at the message policy subject, but the
+ assertion semantics also indicates that the if
+ a sender chose to engage RM
+ semantics (although not specified via attachment in WSDL at incoming
+ messages), the providers will honor the engagement of RM.
+ This is illustrative of how the
+ assertion author can specify additional constraints and
+ assumptions for attachment and engagement of behavior.
+ </p>
+
+ <p role="practice" id="bp-WSDL-preferred-attachment-point">
+ <quote>Preferred attachment point for an Assertion</quote>
+ <quote>If an assertion can be attached at multiple points within a policy
+ subject, an assertion author should specify a preferred attachment
+ point for the chosen policy subject.
+ </quote>
+ </p>
+
+ <p>One approach in WSDL is to identify different attachment points in
+ a policy subject, choose the most granular policy subject that the
+ behavior applies to and
+ specify that as a preferred attachment point. However, this
approach only works if the policy subject is a true WSDL
construct other than some other protocol concept that is
layered over WSDL message exchanges. For example, the WS-RM
@@ -2204,6 +2247,18 @@
<td>Reset Section <specref ref="change-description"/>.
</td>
</tr>
+ <tr>
+ <td>20070507</td>
+ <td>PY</td>
+ <td>Updated 5.6 WSDL guidelines section, to follow the new format and added G15, G16, G17 and G18.
+ Accounts for parts of resolution for
+ <loc href="http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=3989">issue 3989</loc>
+ corresponding to editors' action items
+ <loc href="http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/wspolicyeds/actions/232">232</loc>,
+ <loc href="http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/wspolicyeds/actions/232">253</loc>, and
+ <loc href="http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/wspolicyeds/actions/232">256</loc>.
+ </td>
+ </tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</inform-div1>
Received on Monday, 7 May 2007 20:01:47 UTC