> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ashok Malhotra [mailto:]
> Sent: Wednesday, Sep 14, 2005 12:44 PM
> To:
> Subject: [ws-rx] Issue i024
>
> This is in response to Sanjay's note asking for a proposal
> for issue i024.
> In this case, though, what we are asking for may be a
> clarification and not a change.
>
> The WS-RM Policy spec defines a RM assertion. It also
> specifies how this assertion
> may be attached to WSDL. What is does not specify is the
> motivation behind the
> assertion, how it is used and the messages it applies to. We
> would like this clarified.
>
> It is clear that the RM assertion is an 'informational
> assertion' in that it is a
> property of the sequence and not a property of the messages
> in the sequence. As such,
> it does not make sense for each message to include this information.
>
> Second, policy information is meant to be conveyed by one
> party in a conversation to
> the other. In this case, the assertion seems to specify
> implementation parameters
> that may be private to the RMS or the RMD. If so, it does
> not need to be part of the
> specification.
>
> If, indeed, the RM assertion is to be conveyed from the RMS
> to the RMD it can be
> done as a header in the CreateSequence message. The RMD can
> respond with a header
> in the CreateSequenceResponse by agreeing, disagreeing or
> making a counter proposal.
I thought the idea was to propose the schema element for this and its
content so we can discuss... If we were to allow a header, I would like
to see what it contains, etc.
>
> If the RM assertion has to be conveyed from the RMD to the
> RMS, this has to be done
> before the CreateSequence message and requires a new protocol element.
Perhaps I am missing sth. Why do we need to do that in the protocol?
Since this would be associated with a WSDL (presumably) as an attachment
or separate file, wouldn't the RM assertion at the RMD side be known
already.
>
> All the best, Ashok
>
>
--umit
