Re: Issue 3619 - input from WS-Addressing WG

My apologies, I haven't read Section 3.4 carefully enough and jumped to the example straight away.
The text clearly states (at least this is how I read it now) is that a policy which is applied to a subject inside wsp:AppliesTo 
takes precedence over any policies contained inside of the wsp:AppliesTo element such as EPR.
Asir, can you please confirm this would be equivalent to what you said in another email in this thread [1] ?

That is, can I conclude that  a policy which is applied to an EPR (using EPR as an example) inside wsp:AppliesTo overrides/takes 
precedence over an embedded wsp:Policy (directly or in an
embedded or referenced WSDL) and hence no policies reconciliation is required ?

Thanks,
Sergey Beryozkin
Iona Technologies

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2006Sep/0000.html

>
> Hi
>
> The reconciliation with embedded/referenced WSDLs should happen irrespectively of whether a policy is attached to EPR through an 
> embedded wsp:Policy or through a WS-Policy Attachment mechanism (as shown in the example in Section 3.4).
>
> What is the algorithm for reconciling an embedded wsp:Policy with the WSDLs ? The same algorithm should be applied to a WS-Policy 
> Attachment example.
> If both EPR-embedded (wsp:Policy) and wsp:PolicyAttachment-attached policies are available at the same time then one of then 
> should take precedence and then the chosen policy should be reconciled with WSDLs.
>
> As a side question : why would someone have a policy attached to/embedded in EPR anyway ? What is the advantage of doing it (and 
> hence requiring a policy consumer to go through a reconcilation process) instead of attaching it directly to a policy subject 
> inside a corresponding WSDL definition ?
>
> Cheers
>
> Sergey Beryozkin
> Iona Technologies
>
>
>
>

Received on Friday, 1 September 2006 10:38:18 UTC