There are a number of issues already open addressing how we attach policies to indicate that an endpoint supports virtual (implicit) operations and the flavour/extent of that support.  For example,issue 6403 http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6403 describes policy to indicate that an endpoint supports enumeration and there are similar issues open for the other specs (6402,6406, 6407).

These issues do not discuss how policy should be attached to the virtual operation (i.e. one that does not appear in WSDL) itself.  They also don't address what policy should be applied to the virtual operations by default.  One option for default behaviour might be to default to the policy of the endpoint, but this poses problems as many policies are applied at operation/message level (and therefore are not available at the endpoint).

There are a number of possible solutions that we might adopt to solve this problem.  I suggest that we choose a pattern and re-use that across all the specs for simplicity and consistency.

For example, here's a potential pattern:

<wsp:Policy>
   ... <lots of policy for the endpoint>

   <wsra policy indicating wsra spec support>
      ...

      <wsra:VirtualOperationPolicy>
          ...
      </wsra:VirtualOperationPolicy>              

   </wsra policy indicating wsra spec support>

</wsp:Policy>

The VirtualOperationPolicy defines the policy for the implicit operations relating to the wsra spec support.

For example, the above pattern applied to eventing MIGHT look something like this:

<wsev:WSEventingSupported  ...>
  <wsp:Policy>
    ...
     
    <wsev:subscribeOperationPolicy>
        ... policies such as security policy to attach to subscribe request ...
    </wsev:subscribeOperationPolicy>

  </wsp:Policy>
</wsev:WSEventingSupported>

If we agree on a pattern to try, the next step might be to take some real examples (e.g. security policy) in order to check that the pattern works prior to applying it across the specs.

This issue is also related to http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6694 which asks when operations do/don't appear in the WSDL.  

It's probably best for us to address the other policy issues and 6694 before this one - but this is an important issue as lack of clear specification in this area will prevent interoperability and make life hard for implementers.