- From: Katy Warr <katy_warr@uk.ibm.com>
- Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2009 10:34:03 +0000
- To: Gilbert Pilz <gilbert.pilz@oracle.com>
- Cc: Asir Vedamuthu <asirveda@microsoft.com>, "public-ws-resource-access@w3.org" <public-ws-resource-access@w3.org>, public-ws-resource-access-request@w3.org
- Message-ID: <OFC142D0E9.702CD37A-ON80257694.0039E38E-80257694.003A0D9C@uk.ibm.com>
Thanks Gil Final one is a typo - it should read WS-Transfer WSDL (I think I cut/paste it from the previous example). Katy From: Gilbert Pilz <gilbert.pilz@oracle.com> To: Katy Warr/UK/IBM@IBMGB Cc: Asir Vedamuthu <asirveda@microsoft.com>, "public-ws-resource-access@w3.org" <public-ws-resource-access@w3.org> Date: 18/12/2009 21:48 Subject: 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 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
Received on Tuesday, 22 December 2009 10:34:41 UTC