W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-policy-qa@w3.org > September 2006

[Bug 3616] Policy Negotiation

From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2006 23:09:35 +0000
CC:
To: public-ws-policy-qa@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1GNdrL-0007GT-VO@wiggum.w3.org>

http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=3616





------- Comment #2 from tboubez@layer7tech.com  2006-09-13 23:09 -------
I agree with Ashok and Toufic that this is an important case. 

At the same time, I think that adding the negotiation definition in any
algorithmic form is premature at this point, and it may potentially impose
unnecessary limitations on the future WS-Policy use cases.

One can argue that policy negotiation may involve some intermediary (as in the
case of policy enforcement) or be done out-of-band. I also think that policy
negotiation in the form of policy exchange will be unacceptable in many cases. 

I agree with Asir that the specification should adhere to the Charter, and that
negotiation problems, use cases, etc - as discussed in the thread below -
should be postponed and raised as framework issues.

Regards,

Yakov Sverdlov
CA 

-----Original Message-----
On Behalf Of Ashok Malhotra

I have no objection to postponing negotiation to v.Next but it would be nice
to get a definition on the table.

Here's a possible definition.

1. The two endpoints exchange policies.  If they agree on a policy alternative
the negotiation stops.

2. If they cannot agree on an alternative then:

EITHER: one of the endpoints introduces a new, or amended, policy and we go
back to 1.

OR: Policy negotiation fails.

Toufic, if this something like what you had in mind?

All the best, Ashok
Received on Wednesday, 13 September 2006 23:09:42 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:21:08 GMT