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

Re: NEW ISSUE (4074): [Guidelines] Collection of unclear Guidance or text issues

From: Maryann Hondo <mhondo@us.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2006 11:52:17 -0500
To: Daniel Roth <Daniel.Roth@microsoft.com>
Cc: "public-ws-policy@w3.org" <public-ws-policy@w3.org>, public-ws-policy-request@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF20AE6497.9DE3D5FE-ON8725724A.005AFC6C-8525724A.005C9527@us.ibm.com>
Dan,
I have some questions about your proposal and some friendly amendments to 
propose:

For #3 would you accept a friendly amendment of the following:

“The granularity of assertions is determined by the authors. and Itit is 
recommended that care be taken when defining nested policies to ensure 
that the options provided appropriately specify policy alternatives within 
a specific behavior.” 

For #4, 
I think that using RM is a good example so I suggest we address your 
question......

It is not clear how “the current set of subjects as mapped to the WSDL 1.1 
elements, can also constrain the assertion.”  It’s not clear how 
supporting RM policy at the endpoint “resulted in the finer granularity of 
the assertion to apply at the message policy subject.”  It is not clear 
what “constraints and assumptions for attachment and engagement of 
behavior” an assertion author should specify.

I believe that the intent here is that an assertion represents a behavior. 
So supporting RM  at the endpoint indicates that the behavior is for an RM 
sequence, a policy subject that is not defined by the WS-Policy group. The 
way that RM uses sequence numbers for messages is the finer granularity, 
so maybe it would be good to elaborate on this expected behavior rather 
than removing it, since these assertions will be used by policy 
implementors. We could ask the RM group for some input.

For #5, you quote
“domain authors should be aware of the compositional semantics with other 
related domains. The protocol assertions that require composition with 
WS-Security should be particularly aware of the nesting requirements on 
top of transport level security.”  [4]

and suggest it be removed.

I think the first statement is an important guideline.  Domain authors 
need to be aware of how their policies might interact with other
domains. I think we could change the second sentence to something like 
this

"Authors of new assertions which will coexist with existing  assertions 
like  WS-Security , should make themselves
aware of the nesting of policies in the WS-Security domain and the 
behaviors that this represents.

Maryann





Daniel Roth <Daniel.Roth@microsoft.com> 
Sent by: public-ws-policy-request@w3.org
12/12/2006 05:38 PM

To
"public-ws-policy@w3.org" <public-ws-policy@w3.org>
cc

Subject
NEW ISSUE (4074): [Guidelines] Collection of unclear Guidance or  text 
issues






See http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=4074

 
Title: [Guidelines] Collection of unclear Guidance or text issues
 
Description:
 
1.) Section 3.1.1 states:  “The WS-Policy Framework is based on a 
declarative model, meaning that it is incumbent on the WS-Policy authors 
to define both the semantics of the assertions as well as the scope of 
their target domain in their specification. The set of metadata for any 
particular domain will vary in the granularity of assertion specification 
required.” [1]
 
It is not clear what it means to define the “scope of their target 
domain.”
 
2.) Section 3.1.1 later quotes an unknown section from WS-SecurityPolicy 
(needs a reference) and prefaces the quote with: “An example of a domain 
specification that follows these practices is the WS-SecurityPolicy 
specification [WS-SecurityPolicy]. The WS-SecurityPolicy authors have 
defined their scope as follows:” 
 
It is not clear what practice the quote is trying to demonstrate, though I 
think the is referring to an assertion author defining the “scope of their 
target domain”
 
3.) Section 4.4.2, 1st paragraph states: “The granularity of assertions is 
determined by the authors and it is recommended that care be taken when 
defining nested policies to ensure that the options provided appropriately 
specify policy alternatives within a specific behavior.” [2]
 
It is not clear what it means to “define nested policies to ensure that 
the options provided appropriately specify policy alternatives within a 
specific behavior.”
 
4.)  Section 4.7 states: “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.” 
[3]
 
It is not clear how “the current set of subjects as mapped to the WSDL 1.1 
elements, can also constrain the assertion.”  It’s not clear how 
supporting RM policy at the endpoint “resulted in the finer granularity of 
the assertion to apply at the message policy subject.”  It is not clear 
what “constraints and assumptions for attachment and engagement of 
behavior” an assertion author should specify.
 
5.) Section 6 states: “domain authors should be aware of the compositional 
semantics with other related domains. The protocol assertions that require 
composition with WS-Security should be particularly aware of the nesting 
requirements on top of transport level security.”  [4]
 
It is not clear what Section 6 is recommending that policy assertion 
authors do.
 
Justification: The text in these sections does not provide clear guidance, 
which could result in confusion and misinterpretation.
 
Target: Guidelines for Policy Assertion Authors
 
Proposal: 
 
1,2.) Replace “The WS-SecurityPolicy authors have defined their scope as 
follows:” with “The WS-SecurityPolicy authors have defined the scope of 
their target domain (security) as follows:”
 
3.) Remove or clarify the sentence
 
4.) Remove the section 
 
5.) Remove or clarify the section.
 
[1] 
http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2006/ws/policy/ws-policy-guidelines.html?rev=1.11&content-type=text/html;%20charset=utf-8#domain-owners 
 
[2] 
http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2006/ws/policy/ws-policy-guidelines.html?rev=1.11&content-type=text/html;%20charset=utf-8#nested-assertions 
 
[3] 
http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2006/ws/policy/ws-policy-guidelines.html?rev=1.11&content-type=text/html;%20charset=utf-8#levels-of-abstraction 
 
[4] 
http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2006/ws/policy/ws-policy-guidelines.html?rev=1.11&content-type=text/html;%20charset=utf-8#inter-policy 
 
 

Received on Wednesday, 20 December 2006 16:51:40 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:20:44 GMT