3619 2006-08-23 13:03:38 +0000 add an inssue on coordination with other working groups 2006-11-09 16:19:55 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified WS-Policy Attachment PR PC Windows XP RESOLVED FIXED P2 normal --- 1 mhondo mhondo public-ws-policy-qa oldest_to_newest 11242 0 mhondo 2006-08-23 13:03:38 +0000 as per my assigned action ----http://www.w3.org/2006/08/16-ws-policy-minutes.html#action06] this is to Add an issue on coordination there seems to be some question on whether the example given in 3.4 is "legitimate" with regard to the WS-Addressing specification/Working group and whether or not there are additional attachment mechanisms for WSDL, so the action is to coordinate with the WSDL and WS-Addressing working groups to have them review the examples we are citing 11377 1 Paul.Cotton 2006-09-04 22:12:04 +0000 See WG thread at: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2006Aug/0172.html 11413 2 mhondo 2006-09-06 15:53:40 +0000 From Paul Cotton- Add an issue on coordination with other working groups http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=3619 Maryann carried out her action to ask the WS-Addressing WG to review the example in Section 3.4 of WS-PolicyAttachments: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2006Aug/0087.html We need to consider the questions asked by Marc Hadley in his response to Maryann's request: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2006Aug/0089.html "Have you considered the semantics when other things are included in the EndpointReference. In particular, if the EPR contains a metadata element with an embedded wsp:Policy (either directly or via an intermediate embedded or referenced WSDL), how are the policies reconciled?" 11733 3 ritzmann 2006-09-14 19:42:58 +0000 Copying http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2006Sep/0072.html: Asir Vedamuthu wrote: >> A policy externally attached to it takes precedence >> over policies which can be directly or indirectly >> attached inside an EPR itself. > > Yes. My read is - policies contained within a policy subject (say an EPR > or another policy subject) aren't in-scope with respect to an external > policy attachment. I'm struggling with the wording in WS-PolAt section 3.4. Can you point me to where exactly it says that? >> If it takes precedence over Endpoint Policy >> Subject's policies then does it take precedence >> over policies which can be associated with it >> through wsdl:portType and wsdl:binding as well ? > > The WSDL port, binding and portType elements are attachment points and > collectively represent the ---endpoint policy subject---. Does that make sense? Why not merge the EPR policy with the policies in the endpoint scope of the WSDL? > It is important to note that the example in Section 3.4 > (WS-PolicyAttachment) is fictitious and illustrative. We just need to make sure the external attachment semantics are clearly defined. 12885 4 chrisfer 2006-11-09 16:19:55 +0000 Resolved at November f2f with no action as recorded: http://www.w3.org/2006/11/09-ws-policy-irc#T16-19-39