Yalcinalp, Umit wrote:
>
>
>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Ashok Malhotra [mailto:]
>>Sent: Thursday, Sep 15, 2005 5:54 AM
>>To: Yalcinalp, Umit;
>>Subject: RE: [ws-rx] Issue i024
>>
>>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
>
>
> Yes, that is why I was trying to understand your second suggestion which
> was not answered by your email. I think you are making some assumptions
> with respect to scoping of the assertions which I am trying to uncover.
>
> Could you clarify in which situations you envision RMD side assertions
> needs to communicate RMS in a separate protocol element and whether that
> protocol element must be defined by this specification? Typically, the
> endpoint would already have the assertion associated (WSDL/Attachment)
> which is already available. The scope is the endpoint. I presume you are
> thinking of different scoping requirement here.
>
Is there an assumption here that the endpoint is alwasy the RMD?
There are cases where it isn't: out-only operations, out-part of in-out
operations etc.
-Anish
--
> Thanks,
>
> --umit
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>>-----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
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
