W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-policy@w3.org > September 2006

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

From: Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2006 12:52:33 -0700
To: Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>, Bob Freund-Hitachi <bob.freund@hitachisoftware.com>
CC: "public-ws-policy@w3.org" <public-ws-policy@w3.org>
Message-ID: <4D66CCFC0B64BA4BBD79D55F6EBC225712CCD828B6@NA-EXMSG-C103.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>

The WS-Policy WG considered your original three questions from issue 3656 [1] during its F2F meeting last week.  The discussion of this issue will appear in the WG's F2F minutes at [2]

> Should the WS-Policy Working Group request at least a non-normative
> reference to Web Services Policy 1.5 from the Addressing WSDL Binding
> specification?

Due to timing issues of the WS-Addressing and WS-Policy WGs we suggest you make the following kind of non-normative change in the Web Services Addressing 1.0 - WSDL Binding specification:

"The wsaw:UsingAddressing element MAY also be used in other contexts (e.g., as a policy assertion in a policy framework <such as WS-Policy [REF]>)."

> Should there be an example of the use of the UsingAddressing element in
> one of the WS-Policy document (Primer?)?

Such examples already exist in the draft WS-Policy Primer.  The WS-Policy WG has now decided to publish this Primer and we believe this meets the needs your expressed.

> Is it considered harmful to allow the use of UsingAddressing both as a
> WSDL extension and as a policy assertion? What is the expectation if those > two are used simultaneously?

The WS-Policy WG does NOT think it is harmful to use UsingAddressing both as a WSDL extension and as a policy assertion.  We believe that this should be permitted this the information may need to be consumed by applications that process either one or the other form of meta-data.

On behalf of the WS-Policy WG

[1] http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=3656
[2] http://www.w3.org/2006/09/13-ws-policy-minutes.html

Paul Cotton, Microsoft Canada
17 Eleanor Drive, Ottawa, Ontario K2E 6A3
Tel: (613) 225-5445 Fax: (425) 936-7329

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-ws-policy-request@w3.org [mailto:public-ws-policy-
> request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Philippe Le Hegaret
> Sent: September 11, 2006 8:04 AM
> To: Asir Vedamuthu
> Cc: public-ws-policy@w3.org
> Subject: RE: [Bug 3656] Using UsingAddressing Extension Element as aWS-
> Policy assertion
> On Sun, 2006-09-10 at 20:39 -0700, Asir Vedamuthu wrote:
> > > One reason would be timing, which why I only proposed
> >
> > I suggest that we discuss the timing at the F2F.
> I won't be at the f2f but my main purpose in this group is to get a
> recommendation on what the addressing folks should do, so I'm fine with
> this being discussed 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.
> Well, someone has to say this if we want implementers to follow your
> suggestion. It can't certainly be WSDL and we can expect the developers
> to read this mailing list before implementing the spec. Doing nothing
> will only lead to confusion. It ought to be documented in the policy
> specs, probably in the WSDL part of the attachment spec. Besides your
> suggestion, we can say:
> - don't mix WSDL extensions and WS-Policy, ie if your extension has a
> corresponding policy assertion, then you should only use the policy
> assertion if Policy is engaged.
> - ignore all WSDL extensions when Policy is engaged.
> The inconvenient of the last approach is of course the limitation
> introduced in the Web services stack, which would force us to bend
> Policy later on to use extensions that don't necessarily have a place
> there.
> Philippe
Received on Wednesday, 20 September 2006 19:53:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:33:15 UTC