RE: [Bug 3656] Using UsingAddressing Extension Element as aWS-Policy assertion

> One reason would be timing, which why I only proposed

I suggest that we discuss the timing at the F2F.

> Do we have wordings on this in one of the policy documents?

Not sure what we can say in the policy drafts. I am afraid that any such
statement crosses spec boundaries.

Regards,
 
Asir S Vedamuthu
Microsoft Corporation


-----Original Message-----
From: Philippe Le Hegaret [mailto:plh@w3.org] 
Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2006 8:55 AM
To: Asir Vedamuthu
Cc: public-ws-policy@w3.org
Subject: RE: [Bug 3656] Using UsingAddressing Extension Element as
aWS-Policy assertion

On Wed, 2006-09-06 at 08:24 -0700, Asir Vedamuthu wrote:
> Philippe> Should the WS-Policy Working Group request 
> Philippe> at least a non-normative reference to Web 
> Philippe> Services Policy 1.5 from the Addressing 
> Philippe> WSDL Binding specification?
> 
> The UsingAddressing element is a policy assertion. We can't think of a
> reason why the UsingAddressing assertion specification wouldn't carry
a
> normative reference to Web Services Policy 1.5.

One reason would be timing, which why I only proposed an informative
reference (we avoid having normative references to working drafts in W3C
Recs). Two main issues are holding off the Addressing WSDL Binding:
- the WS-RX/Addressing WSDL Binding issue around anonymous
- the candidate recommendation phase of WSDL 2.0 itself.

The probability of WS-Policy 1.5 of catching up to the addressing spec
is low for the moment, since the addressing wg should be in a position
to get out of cr around January. If the timing issue and the Policy
Group feel that the wording in the addressing isn't enough, then we'll
need to come up some requirements to hand over the addressing wg. For
example, note that the Addressing spec only talks usingAddressing as a
possible policy assertion and doesn't say anything about the Anonymous
element.

> Philippe> Should there be an example of the use of 
> Philippe> the UsingAddressing element in one of the 
> Philippe> WS-Policy document (Primer?)?
> 
> Sure. We are aware of seventeen such examples in the 'Understanding
Web
> Services Policy' white paper [2].

Ah, my bad, I missed those yesterday.

> Alternate representations (i.e. WSDL Extension) may be used to satisfy
> tools that understand these representations. Instances of these
> alternate representations of policy may be used in a WSDL document
> together with the Web Services Policy constructs. Providers may convey
> the capabilities and requirements using multiple representations. Just
> as the richness of a schema using a schema dialect depends on the
> capabilities of the chosen schema dialect (such as XML Schema, DTD and
> Relax NG), the richness of a policy metadata depends on the expressive
> power of the chosen policy dialect (Web Services Policy or Plain Old
> WSDL Extension).

Do we have wordings on this in one of the policy documents?

Philippe

Received on Monday, 11 September 2006 03:39:55 UTC