Re: Bug 6463: Attaching Policy to WS-Mex GetMetadata - Marked up proposal

Sorry, about this delayed message. I sometimes lose context when 
catching up on old email. The following should be input into Asir's 
forthcoming proposal. Asir also already noticed that the last line was 
incorrect.

- gp

On 12/18/2009 1:37 PM, Gilbert Pilz wrote:
> Katy,
>
> A silly, minor nit: The first sentence of Section 8 reads "This 
> specification provides several mechanisms to aid service endpoints and 
> service requesters in bootstrapping the interaction." The interaction 
> of what?
>
> Below Example 8-2 is says: "The WS-MetadataExchange WSDL is embedded 
> (lines 09-23) and contains the policy attached to the binding for the 
> GetMetadata operation (line 18)." It would be more accurate to say:
>
> "The WS-MetadataExchange WSDL is imported (lines 15-16) and an 
> additional binding is defined (lines 17-21). This additional binding 
> contains a reference to a policy (line 18). This policy applies to the 
> GetMetadata operation"
>
> Finally the last sentence "As an alternative to using MetadataLocation 
> (lines 17-20), the WS-MetadataExchange WSDL containing the 
> appropriately attached policy could have been embedded directly into 
> the MetadataSection" makes no sense to me. It seems to me that the 
> point of lines 13-22 is to indicate that you can do a WS-Transfer Get 
> on "http://services.example.org/stockquote/metadata" and expect to get 
> a mex:Metadata document. How would including the WS-MetdataExchange 
> WSDL "containing the appropriately attached policy" do this? Since we 
> are talking about using WS-Transfer it doesn't seem like the WS-MEX 
> WSDL has any bearing on the matter.
>
> - gp
>
> On 12/15/2009 3:07 AM, Katy Warr wrote:
>>
>> Hi Asir
>>
>> Thanks for your comments.
>>
>> > We are afraid that the proposed Example 8-1 does not provide 
>> sufficient protocol binding information to allow requesters to issue 
>> a GetMetadata request against a service endpoint. For instance, how 
>> can a requester infer what is the version of SOAP? What is the 
>> underlying protocol transport?
>>
>> We can exploit the fact that the WS-Metadata Endpoint is the same as 
>> the application endpoint  (that the EPR represents) and therefore 
>> would share its protocol binding information.  Hence, in this case, I 
>> don't think we require this information (it may be defaulted to).
>>
>> > We think that the WS-MetadataExchange specification should provide 
>> an example that provides sufficient binding information, including 
>> policies (to address issue 6463), to bootstrap.
>>
>> > The description of the alternative sounds right. But, example 7.1 
>> describes how to embed service metadata within an EPR. These are two 
>> different use cases. It might help to show case an example that 
>> illustrates how to embed a bootstrap binding in an EPR and how to 
>> attach a policy expression (to address issue 6463) to the bootstrap 
>> binding.
>>
>> How about the attached update?  I've taken your example (from a 
>> previous email) and included it as example 8.2.  I have made some 
>> minor changes (the Identifier and tns on line 10 - let me know if I 
>> got this wrong).  I've also added so explanation below the example 
>> for your review/comments and made some very minor tweaks to the other 
>> explanations to ensure that the explanations were consistent and that 
>> the text flows ok.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Katy
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> From: 	Asir Vedamuthu <asirveda@microsoft.com>
>> To: 	Katy Warr/UK/IBM@IBMGB, "public-ws-resource-access@w3.org" 
>> <public-ws-resource-access@w3.org>
>> Date: 	14/12/2009 17:13
>> Subject: 	RE: Bug 6463: Attaching Policy to WS-Mex GetMetadata - 
>> Marked up proposal
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks Katy.
>>  
>> Here are some initial comments on the proposal.
>>  
>> >In Example 8-1, a [WS-Addressing] endpoint reference to a service 
>> endpoint contains the metadata to allow requesters to issue a 
>> GetMetadata request against it
>>  
>> We are afraid that the proposed Example 8-1 does not provide 
>> sufficient protocol binding information to allow requesters to issue 
>> a GetMetadata request against a service endpoint. For instance, how 
>> can a requester infer what is the version of SOAP? What is the 
>> underlying protocol transport?
>>  
>> We think that the WS-MetadataExchange specification should provide an 
>> example that provides sufficient binding information, including 
>> policies (to address issue 6463), to bootstrap.
>>  
>> >As an alternative to using MetadataLocation (lines 08-17), the 
>> WS-MetadataExchange WSDL containing the appropriately attached policy 
>> could have been embedded directly into the MetadataSection.  The 
>> embedded WSDL approach was used in example Example 7.1 to pass 
>> metadata in the EPR.
>>  
>> The description of the alternative sounds right. But, example 7.1 
>> describes how to embed service metadata within an EPR. These are two 
>> different use cases. It might help to show case an example that 
>> illustrates how to embed a bootstrap binding in an EPR and how to 
>> attach a policy expression (to address issue 6463) to the bootstrap 
>> binding.
>>  
>> We will be more than happy to work with Katy to prepare a revised 
>> proposal.
>>  
>> Regards,
>>  
>> Asir S Vedamuthu
>> Microsoft Corporation
>>  
>> *From:* public-ws-resource-access-request@w3.org 
>> [mailto:public-ws-resource-access-request@w3.org] *On Behalf Of *Katy 
>> Warr*
>> Sent:* Monday, December 07, 2009 10:42 AM*
>> To:* public-ws-resource-access@w3.org; Asir Vedamuthu*
>> Subject:* Bug 6463: Attaching Policy to WS-Mex GetMetadata - Marked 
>> up proposal
>>  
>>
>> Following my action to create a markup version of the proposal for 
>> bug _http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6463_, please find 
>> the marked up document attached.  The changes are all in Section 8 
>> (and an example is moved from section 7).
>>
>>
>>
>> Asir,
>>
>> The difference between your example and my previous one is primarily 
>> that you have embedded the WSDL metadata within the EPR, rather than 
>> using Policy Attachments.  
>>
>> Whilst both approaches work, I believe that we should have a wider 
>> variation of examples within the specification in order to illustrate 
>> different features and usage scenarios. From my experience, a wide 
>> range of examples is of great benefit to developers.  Embedded WSDL 
>> is already illustrated in example 7-1.  
>>
>> In this particular example (8.1), policy attachments also work very 
>> well as it provides a mechanism to associate policy with a single 
>> operation without having the whole WSDL included within the EPR.
>>
>> As a suggested compromise, I've included the policy attachments 
>> example (8-1) in the proposal attached to this mail, but added a 
>> detailed explanation below it in order to aid understanding.  I have 
>> also added some text to say that the WSDL could be embedded, as an 
>> alternative approach.
>>
>> Regards
>> Katy
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>  
>>
>> /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/
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> /
>> /
>>
>> /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/
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>