RE: Bug 6463: Attaching Policy to WS-Mex GetMetadata - Marked up proposal from Katy Warr on 2010-01-06 (public-ws-resource-access@w3.org from January 2010)

From: Katy Warr <katy_warr@uk.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2010 09:53:19 +0000
To: Asir Vedamuthu <asirveda@microsoft.com>
Cc: Asir Vedamuthu <asirveda@microsoft.com>, Gilbert Pilz <gilbert.pilz@oracle.com>, "public-ws-resource-access@w3.org" <public-ws-resource-access@w3.org>, public-ws-resource-access-request@w3.org
Message-ID: <OFA2B5221A.6BF982D3-ON802576A3.00359342-802576A3.0036524A@uk.ibm.com>
Asir

Thank you for the updated proposal.  I noticed that you changed the TNS of 
the feature WSDL that is also specified as the 'Identifier' value.  For 
example, in 8,3:

(14)                <mex:MetadataSection
(15)                  Dialect='http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/wsdl/'
(16) Identifier='http://services.example.org/stockquote/ws-tra'>
(17)                  <mex:MetadataLocation>
(18)                     <!?- Reference to WS-Transfer WSDL at the 
Metadata Endpoint -->
(19)                    
http://services.example.org/stockquote/metadata/TransferWSDL 
(20)                  </mex:MetadataLocation>


If the ws-transfer operations are exposed on WSDL that does not have the 
standard W3C namespace, surely the operations exposed on that WSDL are not 
spec compliant?

Many thanks
Katy



From:
Asir Vedamuthu <asirveda@microsoft.com>
To:
Asir Vedamuthu <asirveda@microsoft.com>, Katy Warr/UK/IBM@IBMGB, Gilbert 
Pilz <gilbert.pilz@oracle.com>
Cc:
"public-ws-resource-access@w3.org" <public-ws-resource-access@w3.org>
Date:
05/01/2010 16:19
Subject:
RE: Bug 6463: Attaching Policy to WS-Mex GetMetadata - Marked up proposal



The attached Word document carries all the known editorial suggestions 
[1][2].
 
[1] 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-resource-access/2009Dec/0067.html 

[2] 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-resource-access/2009Dec/0076.html 

 
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 Asir 
Vedamuthu
Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 2009 12:45 PM
To: Katy Warr
Cc: public-ws-resource-access@w3.org
Subject: RE: Bug 6463: Attaching Policy to WS-Mex GetMetadata - Marked up 
proposal
 
Thanks Katy for your response. 
 
Reviewed. We suggest the following editorial amendments. We did not have 
sufficient time to prepare a marked up version. We will be happy to 
prepare one.
 
1.  Example 8-1
 
Katy> 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.
 
Given that section 8 is about bootstrap binding, to help our readers, we 
think these assumptions should be called out explicitly.
 
Suggestion
 
s/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./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. Example 8-1 assumes that requestors are aware of 
binding information such as the version of SOAP and the underlying 
transport./
 
2.  Example 8-1 - replace necessary metadata with additional metadata
 
Example 8-1 illustrates how to embed additional metadata.
 
Suggestion
 
s/ The endpoint reference contains metadata associated with the service 
endpoint (lines 04-19) and a MetadataSection (lines 06-18) which contains 
the necessary metadata for interacting with the endpoint through 
[WS-MetadataExchange]./ The endpoint reference contains metadata 
associated with the service endpoint (lines 04-19) and a MetadataSection 
(lines 06-18) which contains additional metadata for interacting with the 
endpoint through [WS-MetadataExchange]./
 
3.  Drop the last sentence. We think this is a cut and paste error. The 
last sentence talks about an alternative that is already discussed as 
example 8-2.
 
Suggestion
 
s/ 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.//
 
4.  Example 8-2
 
Katy> I have made some minor changes (the Identifier and tns on line 10 - 
let me know if I got this wrong)
 
The embedded WSDL is a user-defined WSDL and constructs should not be in 
the MEX namespace name.
 
Suggestions
 
s/"targetNamespace='http://www.w3.org/2009/09/ws-mex'"/"targetNamespace='http://services.example.org/stockquote/metadata'"/ 
(or any other namespace name other than the MEX namespace name)
 
s/"Identifier='http://www.w3.org/2009/09/ws-mex'"/"Identifier='http://services.example.org/stockquote/metadata'"/
 
s/The metadata for the [WS-MetadataExchange] interaction is of wsdl 
dialect (line 11) and the identifier (line 08) identifies the 
WS-MetadataExchange feature as described in section 9"//
 
5.  Example 8-3
 
The same reasoning as item 4 applies to Example 8-3.
 
Suggestions
 
s/"Identifier='http://www.w3.org/2009/09/ws-tra'"/"Identifier='http://services.example.org/stockquote/ws-tra'"/ 
(or any other namespace name other than the Transfer namespace name)
 
s/The metadata for the [WS-MetadataExchange] interaction is of wsdl 
dialect (line 16) and the identifier (line 17) identifies the WS-Transfer 
feature as described in section 9./The metadata for the 
[WS-MetadataExchange] interaction is of wsdl dialect (line 16)./
 
Regards,
 
Asir S Vedamuthu
Microsoft Corporation
 
From: Katy Warr [mailto:katy_warr@uk.ibm.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 2009 3:07 AM
To: Asir Vedamuthu
Cc: public-ws-resource-access@w3.org
Subject: RE: Bug 6463: Attaching Policy to WS-Mex GetMetadata - Marked up 
proposal
 

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 



[attachment "wsmex sections 7 and 8 for 6463-v03.doc" 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
Received on Wednesday, 6 January 2010 09:53:59 UTC