In order for the policy framework to enable communities to express their own domain knowledge, it is necessary to provide basic functionality that all domains could exploit and then allow points of extension where authors of the various WS-Policy expressions for a particular domain can provide additional semantics.

Below we capture some of the characteristics of the roles and responsibilities for the authors, consumers and providers.

WS-Policy authors need to have some definition of what the goal is for the assertions they author. WS-Policy authors should also understand the functionality the WS-Policy framework provides and apply the knowledge of framework processing when defining the set of assertions.

Assertions can be simple or they can be complex. WS-Policy authors may choose to specify one or two assertions or they may choose to specify many assertion elements that require parameters or other nested assertions. There are advantages to simplifying the set of assertions. The ultimate goal of policy assertions is to enable interoperability and assertions that define behavior for consumers and providers that can be clearly understood will most likely be consumed by a broad audience.

If a domain has a wide range of behaviors, the ability to combine individual assertions may also need to be considered.

The number of different subjects to which an assertion can be attached is also a factor when defining an assertion. Determining the appropriate policy subjects can sometimes involve understanding the requirements of wide range of client configurations, from stand alone client applications to "active" web service requestors that are capable of modifying their own configurations dynamically.

Once the range of policy subjects are identified, there are choices for ways of attaching multiple instances of a simple policy assertion to multiple subjects. One way is to utilize the referencing mechanism that is present in the framework. By defining the assertion once and using it in different policies (e.g. with different alternatives) via reference, a policy assertion may be associated with different alternatives and subjects. A referencing mechanism is very useful in a tooling environment; when creating a domain specific attachment in multiple WSDL files or Endpoint References in which the same set of policies are expected to be applied.

In summary, WS-Policy domain authors should consider the following factors when composing the set of domain assertions as it may make sense to factor out some assertions that can be used by multiple subjects:

We will cover these aspects in more detail with respect to the type of assertions being used in the subsequent sections.

When creating a new policy domain, it is important to understand how policy expressions are used by the framework. Some WS-Policy domains represent infrastructure efforts like WS-SecurityPolicy and WS-RM Policy. We also anticipate that individual web services applications and deployments may wish to reuse the WS-Policy framework in order to enable dynamic negotiation of business requirements and capabilities at runtime.

New policy authors should not try to overload assertions. A single assertion indicates a single behavior. Sets of assertions can by grouped by an operator "all". This indicates that there is a relationship between the assertions and they now constitute a policy alternative. Choices between alternatives can be indicated by an "exactly one" operator. This basic set of operators allows authors a wide range of options for expressing the possible combinations of assertions within their domain.

It requires a good deal of effort to evaluate the capabilities of a domain and capture them in a way that reflects the options of the domain if the domain has a lot of assertions to define. Interoperability testing of new policy domains is recommended to ensure that consumers and providers are able to use the new domain assertions.

New authors are encouraged to look at to see an example of a relatively simple domain that has defined 3 assertions. Domain authors are encouraged to look at to see an example of a complex domain that has been decomposed into a set of policy expressions.

When considering the creation of a new domain of policy assertions, it is important to identify whether or not the domain is self-contained or at least if a subset of the domain can be well defined. A domain that expresses a broad set of capabilities will also need to have community supporting implementations to provide value to the consumers. Ultimately it is the consumers and providers that will determine whether a particular set of assertions correctly characterize a domain. A new community should avoid duplicating assertions that have already been defined as this will create ambiguity not clarification. New WS-Policy authors should focus on creating assertions for those specific constraints and capabilities that do not overlap with other domains but that communicate new functionality.

The model advocated for new assertion development is a cooperative marketplace [some might say its an "opt-in" model]. The providers of services need to find value in the set of assertions or they will not include the assertions in their service descriptions.

A review by a broad community is the best way to ensure that the granularity of a set of domain assertions is appropriate.

There are two different ways to provide additional information in an assertion beyond its type. We cover these two cases below followed by a comparison of these approaches targeting when to use either of the approach.

WS-Policy is intended to communicate the requirements, capabilities, preferences and behaviors of nodes that provide the message's path, not specifically to declare properties of the message semantics. One of the advantages of Web services is that an XML message can be stored and later examined (e.g. as a record of a business transaction) or interpreted by an intermediary; however, if information that is necessary to understand a message is not available, these capabilities suffer.

Policy assertions should not be used to express the semantics of a message. Rather, if a property is required to understand a message, it should be communicated in the message, or be made available by some other means (e.g., being referenced by a URI in the message) instead of being communicated as a policy element.

For example, if the details of a message's encryption ( e.g., the cipher used, etc) are expressed in policy that isn't attached to the message, it isn't possible to later decipher it. This is very different from expressing, in policy, what ciphers (and so forth) are supported by a particular endpoint, or those that are required in a particular message; the latter are the intended uses of the WS-Policy framework.

As a result, the assertion authors should take into account that the following important concepts when designing assertions and documenting the semantics of the assertion types. Firstly, an assertion type indicates a runtime behavior. Secondly, an assertion should also indicate how the assertion type can be inferred or indicated from a message at runtime. If there is a need for the behavior to be represented in a persistent way or if there is a need for additional data or metadata that is present in a message to be persisted, it should be incorporated into the assertion design or in the message itself. In essence, the assertion authors should consider how to make messages self describing when utilizing their assertions by specifying additional properties, headers, etc. that must be present in a message as part of their assertion design.

If the messages could not be made self describing by utilizing additional properties present in the message as required by the assertion, it would be necessary to determine the behaviors engaged at runtime by additional means. A general protocol that aids in determining such behaviors may be utilized, however a standard protocol for this purpose is currently not available to ensure interoperability. Thus, a private protocol should be used with care.

Another approach is to use of the assertion to selectively apply to subjects. For example, a dedicated endpoint may be allocated to ensure the engagement of a behavior that is expressed by a policy assertion. This approach can be considered when messages can not be self describing.

Optional behaviors represent behaviors which may be engaged by a consumer. When using the compact authoring form for assertions, behaviors are marked by using wsp:optional attribute that has a value, "true". During the process of normalization, the runtime behavior is indicated by two policy alternatives, one with and one without containing the assertion. In a consumer/provider scenario, the choice of engaging the runtime behavior is upon the consumer although the provider is capable of engaging the runtime behavior. In order to simplify reference to such assertions, we just use the term optional assertions in this section.

The document contains an example that proposes the use of as an optional behavior that can be engaged by a consumer. The primer proposes that an assertion that identifies the use of MIME Multipart/Related serialization (see , for messages to enable a Policy-aware clients to recognize the policy assertion and if they select an alternative with this assertion, they engage Optimized MIME Serialization for messages.

The semantics of this assertion declare that the behavior is reflected in messages: they use an optimized wire format (MIME Multipart/Related serialization). Note that in order for an optional behaviors to be engaged, the wire message that would utilize the specific assertion must be self describing. For example, an inbound message to a web service that asserts MTOM, must evaluate, the protocol format of the message to determine whether the incoming message adheres to the Optimized MIME Serialization. By examining the message, the provider can determine whether the policy alternate that contains the MTOM assertion is being selected.

Assertion authors should be aware that optional behaviors, like utilizing optional support for Optimized MIME Serialization require some care considering the scoping of the assertion that is applicable.

Since a QName is the central mechanism for identifying a policy assertion, assertion authors should be aware of the possible evolution of their assertions and how this would impact the semantics overtime. A namespace associated with the assertion may be used to indicate a specific version of an assertion.

WS-PolicyAttachment provides a means of associating an assertion with arbitrary subjects, regardless of their nature. This flexibility can lead to ambiguity in the interpretation of policy; for example, if one attaches an assertion with the semantic "must be encrypted" to a SOAP endpoint, it's unclear what must be encrypted.

To avoid this confusion, assertion definitions should be precise about their semantics and include information that restricts their set of permissible policy subjects appropriately and indicates which Qnames are associated with which subjects. One way to do this is to generally determine if an assertion is specific to a policy attachment mechanism. An example could be identifying whether the assertion expressed is associated with behaviors (endpoints) or artifacts ( messages) and then constraining the use of an assertion to one of these subjects.

Thus our example encryption assertion would have a subject of "message", and could only be attached to messages, where the assertion is valid. However, authors need to be aware that policy attachment subjects are not limited to the subjects defined in WSDL. The external attachment model in WS-PolicyAttachment allows for the definition of other domain expressions to be policy subjects. More of this topic is covered in the

A behavior identified by a policy assertion applies to the associated policy subject. If a policy assertion is to be used within WSDL, policy assertion authors must specify a WSDL policy subject. The policy subject is determined with respect to a behavior as follows:

WS-Policy authors that wish to utilize WSDL policy subjects need to understand how the assertions will be processed in intersection and merging and the implications of the processing for considering a specific attachment point and policy subject. This topic is considered in detail in

The current set of subjects as mapped to the WSDL 1.1 elements, can also constrain the assertion constructs. For Example, In WS-RM, the domain authors chose to support certain capabilities at the endpoint level. This resulted in the finer granularity of the assertion to apply at the message policy subject, but the assertion semantics also indicates that the if the senders choose to engage RM semantics (although not specified via attachment in WSDL at incoming messages), the providers will honor the engagement of RM. This is illustrative of how the assertion author can specify additional constraints and assumptions for attachment and engagement of behavior.

If the capability is not really suitable and may imply different semantics with respect to attachment points, the assertion authors should consider the following

For a given WSDL policy subject, there may be several attachment points. For example, there are three attachment points for the endpoint policy subject: the port, binding and portType element. Policy assertion authors should identify the relevant attachment point when defining a new assertion. To determine the relevant attachment points, authors should consider the scope of the attachment point. For example, an assertion should only be allowed in the portType element if the assertion reasonably applies to any endpoint that ever references that portType. Most of the known policy assertions are designed for the endpoint, operation or message policy subject.

In using WSDL attachment, it should be noted that the service policy subject is a collection of endpoint policy subjects. The endpoint policy subject is a collection of operation policy subjects and etc. As a result, the WSDL policy subjects compose naturally. It is quite tempting to associate the identified behavior to a broader policy subject than to a fine granular policy subject. For instance, it is convenient to attach a supporting token assertion (defined by the Web Services Security Policy specification) to an endpoint policy subject instead of a message policy subject. Similarly, for authoring convenience, an assertion author may allow the association of an assertion to multiple policy subjects. If an assertion is allowed to be associated with multiple policy subjects then the assertion author has the burden to describe the semantics of multiple instances of the same assertion attached to multiple policy subjects at the same time in order to avoid conflicting behavior.

One approach is to specify a policy subject, choose the most granular policy subject that the behavior applies to and specify a preferred attachment point in WSDL. However, this approach only works if the policy subject is a true WSDL construct other than some other protocol concept that is layered over WSDL message exchanges. For example, the WS-RM Policy is a capability that governs a target endpoints capability to accept sequences that is beyond single message exchanges. Therefore, its semantics encompasses the cases when message level policy subjects may be used as attachment but considers when sequences are present. In addition, when the policy assertions do not target wire-level behaviors but rather abstract requirements, this technique does not apply.

WS-Policy authors need to consider not just the expression of the current set of requirements but how they anticipate new assertions being added to the set. There are three aspects that govern an assertions lifecycle:

Policy attachment should not affect the interpretation of Policy alternatives. If it did, each policy assertion would need to be written with different (and possibly unknown) attachment mechanisms in mind. In particular, the timing of a policy attachment or the role that a party who attaches policy should have no bearing on the evaluation of the policy assertion

Each policy attachment mechanism should unambiguously identify the subject of the attached assertions. Generally, this should be a specific SOAP node or a specific message between two SOAP nodes. Some attachment mechanisms may encompass multiple notes or messages, for example, "the message along its entire path".

As with identifying Policy subjects, policy attachment mechanisms should make it possible to clearly identify the source of a poly assertion both for debugging and for verification. This could take several forms: it could be assumed ( in WSDL, the source of the assertion is the same as the WSDL provider) or it could be proven ( using ).