RE: Corrected Proposed Alternative A for resolution of ws addr metadata LC comment

+1
 
I support the capability of being able to allow for mixed alternatives,
some to anon and some to specific EPRs. This seems, to me,  like an
architecture more in accordance with the distributed capabilities
inherent in a service architecture.
 
 
Skip Snow

  _____  

From: public-ws-policy-request@w3.org
[mailto:public-ws-policy-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Katy Warr
Sent: Monday, March 05, 2007 8:55 AM
To: tom@coastin.com
Cc: WS-Addressing; ws policy
Subject: Re: Corrected Proposed Alternative A for resolution of ws addr
metadata LC comment



Tom, 

This sentence implies a requirement on the request message: 

"The appearance of this element within a policy alternative indicates
that the 
subject requires any request message that has responses to include
response 
endpoint EPRs that contain the anonymous URI 
("http://www.w3.org/2005/08/addressing/anonymous") as the value of
[address]." 

Whereas, this sentence implies that the requirement is scoped to the
response message: 

"In other words, the subject requires that response instances are sent
using the 
anonymous URI." 

I personally think that explaining the requirement in terms of what is
required by the client request message is preferable because the whole
point of this service policy is for client<->service policy
negotiations. The client needs to narrow the available service policies
to a single alternative prior to sending the request.   

If we agreed that nested policies apply to client requests (rather than
responses), we can still fix the problem of  mixing replyTo-anon and
faultTo=nonAnon.  As the proposal stands,
AnonymousResponse/NonAnonymousResponse contradict each other so cannot
exist together within a single alternative. This could be fixed by: 
1) adding a 3rd nested assertion indicating that the request message
must contain differing values for replyTo and faultTo (one anon, the
other non-anon).  Eg 'AnonymousAndNonAnonymousResponses'.  This has the
benefit of allowing service providers to omit this assertion if they
were unable to support this more complex mixed-response type scenario.

2) alternatively, we could revert back to specifying support rather than
requirement thus allowing the nested assertions to co-exist within a
single alternative.  This has the benefit that it makes the nested
assertions composable, but it goes against the direction indicated by
the wsp team. 

thanks, 
Katy 




Tom Rutt <tom@coastin.com> 
Sent by: public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org 

04/03/2007 22:20 
Please respond to
tom@coastin.com


To
Katy Warr/UK/IBM@IBMGB 
cc
WS-Addressing <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>, ws policy
<public-ws-policy@w3.org> 
Subject
Re: Corrected Proposed Alternative A for resolution of ws addr  metadata
LC   comment

	





Well that case can still be handled by having two or more nested 
alternatitves.


Remember the alternatives are for responses not requests.  Each reply to

and fault to
is a separate response.

However, I still in more in favor of alternative D) to delete the nested

policy assertions
for Addressing assertion


Tom

Katy Warr wrote:
>
> Tom
> We have discussed scenarios in previous wsa meetings where a client 
> may need to mix anon/non-anon on a single request:
> - e.g.  replyTo=anon, faultTo=nonAnon
> As wsam:AnonymousResponses and wsam:NonAnonymousResponses are 
> contradictory requirements, there does not appear to be a way for a 
> service indicate that it could accept this combination on a single 
> request (as these assertions specify a single hard requirement which 
> applies to both replyTo and faultTo).
> regards,
> Katy
>
>
>
> *Tom Rutt <tom@coastin.com>*
> Sent by: public-ws-policy-request@w3.org
>
> 02/03/2007 20:36
> Please respond to
> tom@coastin.com
>
>
>                  
> To
>                  WS-Addressing <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>, ws
policy 
> <public-ws-policy@w3.org>
> cc
>                  
> Subject
>                  Corrected Proposed Alternative A for resolution of ws
addr metadata 
> LC  comment
>
>
>
>                  
>
>
>
>
>
> I never posted a complete change proposal for Alternative A (which
> defines the nested assertions of Addressing assertion as requirements,
> with absence implying Prohibition.
>
> I post this for completeness.
>
> -- 
> ----------------------------------------------------
> Tom Rutt                 email: tom@coastin.com; trutt@us.fujitsu.com
> Tel: +1 732 801 5744          Fax: +1 732 774 5133
>
>
> [attachment "ws-AddrMetadataPolicyEdits-altA.pdf" deleted by Katy 
> Warr/UK/IBM]
>
>
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> /
> /
>
> /Unless stated otherwise above:
> IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with 
> number 741598.
> Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6

> 3AU/
>
>
>
>
>
>

-- 
----------------------------------------------------
Tom Rutt                 email: tom@coastin.com; trutt@us.fujitsu.com
Tel: +1 732 801 5744          Fax: +1 732 774 5133








  _____  





Unless stated otherwise above:
IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number
741598. 
Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6
3AU