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: Yalcinalp, Umit <umit.yalcinalp@sap.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2006 15:03:03 -0800
Message-ID: <2BA6015847F82645A9BB31C7F9D6416502FBA1AC@uspale20.pal.sap.corp>
To: "Daniel Roth" <Daniel.Roth@microsoft.com>, <public-ws-policy@w3.org>
Dan, 
 
We just dealt with the issue (4) in today's telcon. This is exactly what
3953 is about and this is what Frederick/I were trying to do today and
we appear to be converging on the text with Action 163. 
 
Lets not reraise issues that we have already covered and are in the
process of addressing already. So, please remove this item from your
list. It is a dup. 
 
Thanks. 
 
--umit
 
 
 


________________________________

	From: public-ws-policy-request@w3.org
[mailto:public-ws-policy-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Daniel Roth
	Sent: Tuesday, Dec 12, 2006 2:38 PM
	To: public-ws-policy@w3.org
	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-abstract
ion  

	[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 23:02:54 GMT

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