This is an archived snapshot of W3C's public bugzilla bug tracker, decommissioned in April 2019. Please see the home page for more details.

Bug 3619 - add an inssue on coordination with other working groups
Summary: add an inssue on coordination with other working groups
Alias: None
Product: WS-Policy
Classification: Unclassified
Component: Attachment (show other bugs)
Version: PR
Hardware: PC Windows XP
: P2 normal
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: maryann
QA Contact: Web Services Policy WG QA List
Depends on:
Reported: 2006-08-23 13:03 UTC by maryann
Modified: 2006-11-09 16:19 UTC (History)
0 users

See Also:


Description maryann 2006-08-23 13:03:38 UTC
as per my assigned action ----]

 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
Comment 1 Paul Cotton 2006-09-04 22:12:04 UTC
See WG thread at: 
Comment 2 maryann 2006-09-06 15:53:40 UTC
From Paul Cotton- 
Add an issue on coordination with other working groups

Maryann carried out her action to ask the WS-Addressing WG to review the example in Section 3.4 of WS-PolicyAttachments:

We need to consider the questions asked by Marc Hadley in his response to Maryann's request:

"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
Comment 3 Fabian Ritzmann 2006-09-14 19:42:58 UTC

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 
Comment 4 Christopher Ferris 2006-11-09 16:19:55 UTC
Resolved at November f2f with no action as recorded: