Re: [ws-rx] [NEW ISSUE] Remove references from WSRM to WSRMP

[Paul Fremantle <paul@wso2.com>]

Doug

> hmmm, some interesting things come to mind....
> - what does section 2.4 (DAs) mean w/o the notion of putting them as 
> Policy assertions? What is a reader expected to do with them w/o some 
> guidance?  Or would we move these to the WS-RMP spec?

The definitions of DAs are just that - simply core definitions of a 
messaging concept. I think they have value in the main spec as a 
motivator of what RM is really for. I agree that from a dependency chain 
perspective they might make more sense in the WSRMP spec, but from a 
reader's perspective they make more sense here. The deletion of the one 
sentence forward-link to WSRMP is really a very minor change.

> - how does removing the reference to WS-RMP help when we have other 
> references to things like SecurityPolicy - which points to the submitted 
> version of WSP?  

Ok. So now you have forced me to explain my ulterior motive here :-)
I don't agree with the current debate on WSRMPs ref to Policy. I think 
we could have gone forward to CS/OS with either of the fine drafts you 
put together. I suspect others in the TC may also have that view. My 
concern is that the debate will continue and once again deadlock the TC. 
I see removing the reference to RMP to be an insurance policy. If the 
minority of the TC who cannot agree on Policy continue to disagree then 
I will propose that we split the CS/OS ballots into three independent 
votes, and maybe we can proceed to CS/OS with - for example - WSRM. Let 
me be clear - this is not an outcome that I want. I personally think all 
three specs are ready to go.

I do not accept Microsoft's view that CD8 means you can only implement 
WSRMP with WSP1.5. And I don't accept Oracle's view that having a loose 
reference to Policy hinders interop. From an Apache perspective we will 
implement and interoperate on both WSP1.2 and 1.5 and we don't consider 
either of those a hard thing to do with WSRMP as currently written. In 
fact at this rate the code will be ready before the arguments are finished.

So to answer your question, I don't believe there is a problem with a 
ref to WS-SecPolicy, because it is an already published stable document. 
The only problem with a reference to WSRMP is that (1) it is unnecessary 
from a dependency viewpoint (2) it would invalidate a separate vote, 
because we couldn't go forward with a document that references WSRMP if 
WSRMP failed to go forward.

> - If pointing to SecurityPolicy is ok because its a non-normative ref, 
> then rather than removing refs to WS-RMP, we should just make it a 
> non-normative one?

So this would be a problem for the reasons stated above.

> - If we decouple RM and RMP, then it seems we should do the same for MC. 
Yes that is very logical

>  Kind of sad since the real content in a WS-MCP spec would be less than 
> a page.  sigh.  

I completely agree.

Would you object to including that as part of this
> issue/proposal if I did the work to split it out?

I would rather track it as a separate issue because it is a much larger 
piece of work including moving text between documents, possibly creating 
documents. This is currently a very minor issue and adding in MC would 
enlarge it considerably.

Paul