Hi Umit:
First we need to understand the possible uses of the assertion.
After we do that we can propose a header -- that's the easy part!
All the best, Ashok
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Yalcinalp, Umit [mailto:]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2005 2:50 PM
> To: ;
> Subject: RE: [ws-rx] Issue i024
>
>
>
> > -----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
>
>
