RE: issue 7728: point 1 - proposal for indicating effective endpoint policy in an EPR

We think you meant that a policy expression within a wsa:Metadata element applies to m bindings and n portTypes supported by an endpoint ...

How would a consumer use the policy expression (in an interoperable manner) without any knowledge of one of those m bindings (that usually appear in a WSDL)? Are these known out-of-band?

Regards,

Asir S Vedamuthu
Microsoft Corporation

-----Original Message-----
From: ashok malhotra [mailto:ashok.malhotra@oracle.com] 
Sent: Friday, October 30, 2009 1:10 PM
To: Asir Vedamuthu
Cc: Gilbert Pilz; public-ws-resource-access@w3.org; antoine.mensch@odonata.fr
Subject: Re: issue 7728: point 1 - proposal for indicating effective endpoint policy in an EPR

Hi Asir:
These would be the policies that applied to the endpoint as a whole i.e. 
have the endpoint as the policy subject.
They are not specific to any binding or portType.
All the best, Ashok


Asir Vedamuthu wrote:
>
> Then, we do not fully understand the underlying use case. Let’s step 
> back a bit … How would a consumer use a policy expression within a 
> wsa:Metadata element in an interoperable manner /without/ any binding 
> descriptions (that usually appear in a WSDL)?
>
>  
>
> Regards,
>
>  
>
> Asir S Vedamuthu
> Microsoft Corporation
>
>  
>
> *From:* Gilbert Pilz [mailto:gilbert.pilz@oracle.com]
> *Sent:* Thursday, October 29, 2009 4:14 PM
> *To:* Asir Vedamuthu
> *Cc:* public-ws-resource-access@w3.org; antoine.mensch@odonata.fr
> *Subject:* Re: issue 7728: point 1 - proposal for indicating effective 
> endpoint policy in an EPR
>
>  
>
> From what you described at one of the F2F's (I forget which), the 
> policies in a MetadataSection with 
> @Dialect="http://www.w3.org/ns/ws-policy" 
> <http://www.w3.org/ns/ws-policy> have no specific attachment points or 
> policy subjects. In the example you provided below, you can't know if 
> the assertions in the wsp:Policy apply to the endpoint, an operation 
> of that endpoint, or a particular message; they are just a collection 
> of policies. If you need to know how/if the policies relate to 
> messages, operations, or endpoints you need to consult at "other 
> metadata" like WSDL or PolicyAttachments.
>
> The purpose of Section 7.2 is to describe how to "communicate the 
> effective policies of the endpoints referenced by those EPRs". When 
> WS-Policy expressions appear as children of wsa:Metadata there is no 
> uncertainty about how/where these policies apply. "The scope of a 
> Policy in an EPR is the endpoint referenced by that EPR. The 
> assertions within the alternatives contained by a Policy in an EPR 
> MUST have endpoint policy subject." Whereas wsa:Metadata/mex:Metadata 
> gives you a big blob of metadata that you (the EPR consumer) have to 
> process (which may include further mex:GetMetadata operations) to 
> determine the effective policies, wsa:Metadata/wsp:Policy says "this 
> is the effective policy"; wsa:Metadata/mex:Metadata is general, 
> wsa:Metadata/wsp:Policy is specific.
>
> - gp
>
> On 10/28/2009 7:12 PM, Asir Vedamuthu wrote:
>
> The underlying use case is addressed by a general-purpose, existing 
> feature [1][2] in the current WS-MetadataExchange draft. For example,
>
>  
>
> <wsa:EndpointReference>
>
>   <wsa:Address>http://services.example.org/stockquote</wsa:Address>
>
>   <wsa:Metadata>
>
>    <mex:Metadata>
>
>     <mex:MetadataSection>
>
>       Dialect='http://www.w3.org/ns/ws-policy'>
>
>      <wsp:Policy> ... </wsp:Policy>
>
>     </mex:MetadataSection>
>
>    </mex:Metadata>
>
>   </wsa:Metadata>
>
> </wsa:EndpointReference>
>
>  
>
> Adobe, IBM, Microsoft, Oracle, Sun and WSO2 interop tested [3][4] the 
> feature in April 2007.
>
>  
>
> Has anyone analyzed why the existing feature does not address the 
> underlying use case?
>
>  
>
> [1] 
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-ws-metadata-exchange-20090924/#Metadata-in-Endpoint-References 
>
>
> [2] http://www.w3.org/Submission/2007/03/Comment

>
> [3] 
> http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/ra/9/01/WS-MetadataExchange-Scenarios-01-19-2007.pdf 
>
>
> [4] 
> http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/ra/9/01/ws-mex-workshop-minutes-April-2007.pdf  
>
>  
>
> Regards,
>
>  
>
> Asir S Vedamuthu
>
> Microsoft Corporation
>
>  
>
> *From:* public-ws-resource-access-request@w3.org 
> <mailto:public-ws-resource-access-request@w3.org> 
> [mailto:public-ws-resource-access-request@w3.org] *On Behalf Of 
> *Gilbert Pilz
> *Sent:* Wednesday, October 28, 2009 4:34 PM
> *To:* public-ws-resource-access@w3.org 
> <mailto:public-ws-resource-access@w3.org>
> *Cc:* antoine.mensch@odonata.fr <mailto:antoine.mensch@odonata.fr>
> *Subject:* issue 7728: point 1 - proposal for indicating effective 
> endpoint policy in an EPR
>
>  
>
> I've attached the first draft of our proposal for incorporating 
> WS-PAEPR into WS-Mex [1] to the entry for issue 7728. This is 
> accomplished by creating a new section, Section 7.2, that describes 
> what it means to put a wsp:Policy or wsp:PolicyReference in a 
> wsa:EndpointReference/wsa:Metadata element.
>
> Note this addresses the WS-DD comments ([2], [3]) made on 
> WS-MetadataExchange by Antoine Mensch.
>
> [1] http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/attachment.cgi?id=775

> [2] 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-resource-access/2009Oct/0027.html

> [3] 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-resource-access/2009Oct/0033.html\ 
> <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-resource-access/2009Oct/0033.html>
>
> - gp
>

Received on Friday, 30 October 2009 21:08:13 UTC