RE: Proposal for Resolution of 3564

Hi Yakov, 
Could you clarify why you want the specific sentence removed? Could we
instead indicate that they need to be careful about using outbound
messages slightly differently? I would be happy to massage the sentence.



	From: Sverdlov, Yakov [] 
	Sent: Wednesday, Oct 25, 2006 7:47 AM
	To: Christopher B Ferris; Yalcinalp, Umit
	Subject: RE: Proposal for Resolution of 3564

	+1 to Umit with two modifications.


	I would like to exclude from the proposal the following
statement because of the symmetric nature of message exchanges:

	 "It is recommended that authors not utilize optional assertions
for outbound messages unless there is explicit, out of band mechanism
(currently such a mechanism is outside the scope of WS-Policy Framework)
that a client can use to indicate that the optional capability must be


	Also I would like to change from:

	"Optional assertion authors should explicitly state how the
capability that is enabled by the assertion would be engaged..."


	"Optional assertion authors should explicitly state how the
behavior that is enabled by the assertion would be engaged..."




	Yakov Sverdlov




[] On Behalf Of Christopher B
	Sent: Monday, October 23, 2006 3:08 PM
	To: Yalcinalp, Umit
	Subject: Re: Proposal for Resolution of 3564


	On the telcon 2 weeks ago, it was suggested during the
discussion that Umit's email may hold a key to 
	unraveling the "tarball" ( I like to refer to it as the
hairball, since I have none). 
	All were encouraged to review Umit's note and continue
discussion on the mailing list. 
	I would like to resume the discussion on this topic this week.
So, please do review 
	Umit's proposal and be prepared to discuss. If you have a better
suggestion, please 
	do make a proposal and send it to the list. 
	Christopher Ferris
	STSM, Software Group Standards Strategy
	phone: +1 508 377 9295 wrote on 10/03/2006 07:00:09 PM:
	> Folks, 
	> As we have decided to divide the understanding the framework 
	> concerns from the assertion development concerns, below find
	> proposal for Optional Assertions as we would like to propose
for the
	> Author's Guidelines Document. 
	> In this proposal, it is assumed that the Primer will introduce
	> example as it does today and the Assertion Guidelines document
	> refer to the example by further guidance and illustration of 
	> pitfalls. These pitfalls that are covered below were also
noted in 
	> the creation of this issue [3564] 
	> In developing this proposal, I realized that we have a
	> issue with the Primer document, namely the choice of MTOM
	> as an example for optional assertions. I am creating a new
issue for
	> that so it can be tackled separately. The current writeup, as
	> refers to the Primer, assumes that such an assertion exists
but the 
	> text can easily be changed to refer to WS-RMP, or any other 
	> assertion that is currently in practice to be used with 
	> optional="true" marker. Therefore, please keep that in mind
	> reading this proposal. 
	> Thanks, 
	> --umit 
	> [3564] 
	> Section 5.7 Optional Policy Assertion: 
	> Optional assertions represent behaviors which may be engaged
by a 
	> consumer. When using the compact authoring form for
	> behaviors are marked by using wsp:optional attribute that has
	> value, "true". During the process of normalization, the
	> behavior is indicated by two policy alternatives, one with and
	> without containing the assertion. In a consumer/provider
scenario, the 
	> choice of engaging the runtime behavior is upon the consumer
	> the provider is capable of engaging the runtime behavior. 
	> The Primer document contains an example that proposes MTOM as
	> optional behavior that can be engaged by a consumer. The
	> proposes that this assertion identifies the use of MIME 
	> Multipart/Related serialization for messages to enable a
	> clients to recognize the policy assertion and if they select
	> alternative with this assertion, they engage Optimized MIME 
	> Serialization for messages. 
	> The semantics of this assertion declare that the behavior is
	> in messages: they use an optimized wire format (MIME
	> serialization). Note that in order for an optional behaviors
to be 
	> engaged, the wire message that would utilize the specific
	> must be self describing. For example, an inbound message to a
	> service that asserts MTOM, must evaluate, the protocol format
of the 
	> message to determine whether the incoming message adheres to
	> Optimized MIME Serialization. By examining the message, the
	> can determine whether the policy alternate that contains the
	> assertion is being selected. 
	> Assertion authors should be aware that optional behaviors,
	> utilizing optional support for Optimized MIME Serialization
	> some care. 
	> + Since optional behaviors indicate optionality for both the
	> and the consumer, behaviors that must always be engaged by a
	> must not be marked as "optional" with a value "true" since
presence of 
	> two alternatives due to normalization enables a consumer to
choose the 
	> alternative that does not contain the assertion, and thus
making the 
	> behavior not being engaged in an interaction. 
	> + As demonstrated in the MIME optimization behavior, behaviors
	> be engaged with respect to messages that are targeted to the
	> so that the provider can determine that the optional behavior
	> engaged. In other words, the requirement of self describing
nature of 
	> messages in order to engage behaviors must not be forgotton
	> regard to the client's ability to detect and select the
alternative if 
	> it is to participate in the exchange. It is recommended that
	> not utilize optional assertions for outbound messages unless
there is 
	> explicit, out of band mechanism (currently such a mechanism is
	> the scope of WS-Policy Framework) that a client can use to
	> that the optional capability must be engaged. 
	> + When optional behaviors are attached with only one side of
	> interaction, such as an inbound message of a request-response,
	> engagement of the rest of the interaction will be undefined.
	> example, if a request-response interaction only specified MTOM

	> optimization for an inbound message, it would not be clear
whether the 
	> outbound message from the provider could also utilize the 
	> behavior. Therefore, the assertion authors are encouraged to
	> how the attachment on a message policy subject on a response
	> should be treated when optional behaviors are specified for
	> exchanges within a request response for response messages.
Leaving the 
	> semantics undescribed may result in providers making
	> (i.e. if the incoming message utilized the optimization, the
	> will be returned utilizing the MTOM serialization). Similarly,
	> engagement of a behavior is only specified for an outbound
	> it may be necessary to describe the semantics if the incoming
	> also utilized the behavior. WS-RM Policy currently allows the 
	> incoming messages to utilize WS-RM protocol to be engaged
although the 
	> assertion may only appear on an outbound message in a request 
	> response. 
	> + Optional assertion authors should explicitly state how the 
	> capability that is enabled by the assertion would be engaged
when they 
	> are designing their assertion, whether by specific headers or
	> other means. 
	> ---------------------- 
	> Dr. Umit Yalcinalp 
	> Architect 
	> NetWeaver Industry Standards 
	> SAP Labs, LLC 
	> Email: Tel: (650) 320-3095 
	> SDN:

	> -------- 
	> "First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, 
	> then they fight you, then you win." Gandhi 

Received on Wednesday, 25 October 2006 15:59:07 UTC