- From: Asir Vedamuthu <asirveda@microsoft.com>
- Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 17:30:09 -0700
- To: Ashok Malhotra <ashok.malhotra@oracle.com>, Paul Cotton <paul.cotton@microsoft.com>, Daniel Roth <daniel.roth@microsoft.com>, <public-ws-policy@w3.org>
Thank you Ashok! >I propose we call the wrapper element wsdlRef +1 >b) A separate namespace for this element -- YES >c) A separate document for the domain expressions -- YES Sounds good. What do others think about questions a)-c)? Regards, Asir S Vedamuthu Microsoft Corporation -----Original Message----- From: Ashok Malhotra [mailto:ashok.malhotra@oracle.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2006 1:06 PM To: Paul Cotton; Asir Vedamuthu; Daniel Roth; public-ws-policy@w3.org Subject: RE: RE: Revised proposal for Bug 3730 Here are my answers to the three outstanding issues: a) One wrapper or two wrappers. The WG agreed on one wrapper. I propose we call the wrapper element wsdlRef used as below <wsp:AppliesTo> <xxx:wsdlRef> http://example.com.LoanFlow#wsdl.service(LoanFlowService) </xxx:wsdlRef> </wsp:AppliesTo> The wrapping element xxx:wsdlRef is defined with the following XML Schema fragment. <xs:element name="wsdlRef" type="anyURI"/> b) A separate namespace for this element -- YES c) A separate document for the domain expressions -- YES All the best, Ashok > -----Original Message----- > From: public-ws-policy-request@w3.org > [mailto:public-ws-policy-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Paul Cotton > Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2006 10:08 AM > To: Asir Vedamuthu; Ashok Malhotra; Daniel Roth; > public-ws-policy@w3.org > Subject: RE: RE: Revised proposal for Bug 3730 > > > We need a concrete proposal in order to close out the WSDL > external attachment issues (issue 3730 and 3599). > > The Oct 25 WG meeting touched on this thread and agreed that > getting the following three questions answered via email > would help us develop a concrete proposal for these two > issues before the F2F meeting. > > > (a) Two distinct wrapper elements for WSDL 11 and 20 sound good. > > WG has expressed a preference for ONE wrapper element. The > MIME type of the resource should determine the semantics of > the URI. Asir and others expressed support for this position > at the Oct 25 meeting. > > > (b) These two wrapper elements (WSDL 11 and 20) are domain > expressions. > > Just like other domain related work (security, reliability, > > transaction, etc.), these domain expressions can be in their own > > namespace names (for instance > > http://www.w3.org/2006/07/ws-policy/wsdl20). By minting new > namespace > > names for domain expressions, WG can showcase this > extensibility point. > > WG has not yet decided if they want a separate namespace for > this domain expression. > > Pro position: > - Separates the "domain expression" into a separate namespace > and keeps it separate from the main Policy namespace. > > Con position: > - This might cause people to infer that the material in the > second namespace is an "optional" feature that they don't > have to implement in order to do WS-Policy. > > > (c) Just like the policy language and assertions, the external > > attachment mechanism and domain expressions evolve independently. > > There is a clean separation between the external attachment > mechanism > > and domain expression. To promote these, we suggest > documenting these > > domain expressions in a separate document (for instance > 'Web Services > > Policy - Domain Expressions'). > > WG has not yet decided if they want a separate document. > > Pro: > - This would permit the work to advance on its own schedule > separate from the Framework and Attachment specs. > > Please express your opinions on items b) and c) above via > email before the Nov 1 distributed meeting. > > /paulc > > Paul Cotton, Microsoft Canada > 17 Eleanor Drive, Ottawa, Ontario K2E 6A3 > Tel: (613) 225-5445 Fax: (425) 936-7329 > mailto:Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: public-ws-policy-request@w3.org [mailto:public-ws-policy- > > request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Asir Vedamuthu > > Sent: October 18, 2006 11:28 AM > > To: Ashok Malhotra; Daniel Roth; public-ws-policy@w3.org > > Subject: RE: Revised proposal for Bug 3730 > > > > > > Thank you Ashok. There are three other bits on 3730 and 3599: > > > > (a) Two distinct wrapper elements for WSDL 11 and 20 sound good. > > > > (b) These two wrapper elements (WSDL 11 and 20) are domain > expressions. > > Just like other domain related work (security, reliability, > > transaction, etc.), these domain expressions can be in their own > > namespace names (for instance > > http://www.w3.org/2006/07/ws-policy/wsdl20). By minting new > namespace > > names for domain expressions, WG can showcase this > extensibility point. > > > > (c) Just like the policy language and assertions, the external > > attachment mechanism and domain expressions evolve independently. > > There is a clean separation between the external attachment > mechanism > > and domain expression. To promote these, we suggest > documenting these > > domain expressions in a separate document (for instance > 'Web Services > > Policy - Domain Expressions'). > > > > Regards, > > > > Asir S Vedamuthu > > Microsoft Corporation > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: public-ws-policy-request@w3.org > > [mailto:public-ws-policy-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Ashok Malhotra > > Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 3:28 PM > > To: Daniel Roth; public-ws-policy@w3.org > > Subject: RE: Revised proposal for Bug 3730 > > > > > > Dan: > > You said ... > > > ... but it doesn't say what the implied Policy Scopes and Policy > > > Subjects are. I'm guessing they should be the same as the Policy > > > Scopes and Subjects already defined for WSDL 2.0 attachment. > > > > This is a good point. If I look at the latest Policy > Attachment spec > > it has a long section on WSDL 2.0 attachment with an extensive > > discussion of Policy Subjects and Scopes and merging. I > don't think > > we want to repeat this material for the external attachment > section. > > So, how about we add a paragraph that says something like: > > > > The semantics of associating policies with WSDL 2.0 > components using > > the external attachment mechanism are exactly the same as if the > > policies had been attached directly to WSDL 2.0 components > using the > > mechanisms described in section 5. The possible policy scopes are > > exactly those allowed in section 5.2 and the calculation of > effective > > policies is done in exactly the same manner as described in section > > 5.4. > > > > All the best, Ashok > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Daniel Roth [mailto:Daniel.Roth@microsoft.com] > > > Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2006 8:59 AM > > > To: Ashok Malhotra; public-ws-policy@w3.org > > > Subject: RE: Revised proposal for Bug 3730 > > > > > > Hi Ashok, > > > > > > Thanks for sending out a new proposal. I see that you added a > > > wrapper element, which is great. > > > > > > The policy attachment spec uses the terms Policy Scope and Policy > > > Subject when defining attachment mechanisms. You attach > policies to > > > Policy Scopes which associates the attached policy with > all Policy > > > Subjects within that Policy Scope. This language is also used to > > > describe how policies are merged when multiple policies > are attached > > > to different scopes containing the same Policy Subject. This > > > proposal describes how to use a WSDL 2.0 component reference as a > > > domain expression, but it doesn't say what the implied > Policy Scopes > > > and Policy Subjects are. I'm guessing they should be the same as > > > the Policy Scopes and Subjects already defined for WSDL 2.0 > > > attachment. > > > > > > Also the current proposal doesn't use any RFC language, and it > > > probably needs to if you want the proposal simply copied into the > > > attachment spec. This could just be an action item for > the editors. > > > > > > Daniel Roth > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: public-ws-policy-request@w3.org > > > [mailto:public-ws-policy-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of > Ashok Malhotra > > > Sent: Friday, October 06, 2006 2:15 PM > > > To: public-ws-policy@w3.org > > > Subject: Revised proposal for Bug 3730 > > > > > > > > > As requested, I have defined an element wrapper for the URI > > > Reference that indicated the WSDL 2.0 component. > > > > > > All the best, Ashok > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
Received on Saturday, 28 October 2006 00:31:21 UTC