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

[Bug 3619] add an inssue on coordination with other working groups

From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 19:42:58 +0000
CC:
To: public-ws-policy-qa@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1GNx6w-000597-6M@wiggum.w3.org>

http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=3619





------- Comment #3 from ritzmann@sun.com  2006-09-14 19:42 -------
Copying http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2006Sep/0072.html:

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 
defined.
Received on Thursday, 14 September 2006 19:43:08 GMT

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