W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-desc@w3.org > December 2006

RE: Generic proposal for enganging MTOM in WSDL 2.0

From: <paul.downey@bt.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2006 16:35:17 -0000
Message-ID: <2A7793353757DB4392DF4DFBBC9522550A2012B7@I2KM11-UKBR.domain1.systemhost.net>
To: <jonathan@wso2.com>, <ryman@ca.ibm.com>
Cc: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>

Thanks Jonathan for writing this up

> Advantages:
> 1) No new syntax needed.
> 2) No changes to specs at all!
> 3) Profile can be processed by a fully conformant WS-Policy processor.

wouldn't that be the case for the extension attribute?

> 4) Obviates need to describe the interaction of wsdli:simpleAssertions and
> wsdl:required.

doesn't WS-Policy have the same issue?
is there anything we can reference / reuse?

> 5) Can be defined for multiple versions of Policy.

as with the flag, which could be applied to non Policy elements ..

> 6) Supports any assertions supported by the implementation (just like
> WS-Policy.)  This includes a possible future version of an MTOM assertion.

> 7) Isn't open to unintended side-effects (what evil uses could
> wsdli:simpleAssertions be put to?)

Oh, probably no more evil than WS-Policy :-)
but point taken.

> Disadvantages;
> 1) Doesn't provide any standards status to such a profile.

we could add a non-normative example?

> 2) Doesn't provide any machine-readable indication that the profile is in
> use.

Machines could check no child elements from the wsp: namespace exist
when looking for an assertion, something like:


FWIW I much prefer Asir's proposal - I'd like to see it cited as
an example, but this is Canon's use-case ..

Received on Wednesday, 6 December 2006 16:35:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:07:03 UTC