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

Re: NEW ISSUE: [Guidelines] Clarify if Section 7 on defining new policy attachment mechanisms is necessary

From: Maryann Hondo <mhondo@us.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 09:07:34 -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: <OF7C99B4E5.F43AC020-ON87257236.004ABC7E-85257236.004D7B9B@us.ibm.com>
Dan,
I'd like you to consider an alternative proposal:

rename Section 7-
Section 7: General guidelines for policy authors extending Policy 
Attachment subjects

Section 7.1 should really be part of the "considerations when modelling 
new assertions  [section 4.3]" since I believe the intent of this entire 
section was to summarize the "best practices" which are now (as a result 
of action item to the editors #77 and bug 3792) included as a line in each 
section as opposed to summarized at the end.

Section 7.3 might be more appropriately covered in the lifecycle section, 
as I believe the intent is to say that assertions attached to a policy 
subject may be transient or persistent.  A provider may change the 
policies on a wsdl and a consumer that has a previous wsdl for the 
endpoint with embedded policies may find that a message sent that conforms 
to that wsdl they have (perhaps cached) is no longer valid and that they 
may need to get another wsdl with the updated policies in order to be able 
to exchange messages with the provider.

Section 7.2 should be reworded to say
If assertion authors chose to extend the policy subjects following the 
extensibility guidelines of the WS-PolicyAttachment specification, any new 
policy subjects 
Each policy attachment mechanism should unambiguously identify the subject 
of the attached assertions. It should be understood that extensions 
outside the set defined in the specification may not be recognized. 
Generally, For example, targetting this should be a specific SOAP node or 
a specific message between two SOAP nodes. Some There is currently no 
attachment mechanisms that may encompass multiple nodes or messages, for 
example, "the message along its entire path". 


Maryann




Daniel Roth <Daniel.Roth@microsoft.com> 
Sent by: public-ws-policy-request@w3.org
11/17/2006 08:30 PM

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

Subject
NEW ISSUE: [Guidelines] Clarify if Section 7 on defining new policy 
attachment mechanisms is necessary






http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=3978
 
Title: [Guidelines] Clarify if Section 7 on defining new policy attachment 
mechanisms is necessary
 
Description: Section 7 in the Guidelines document currently discusses 
guidelines for authoring new policy attachment mechanisms [1].  These 
guidelines are not relevant to policy assertion authors.  Does the working 
group plan on providing guidance on creating new policy attachment 
mechanisms?  If no, then this section should be removed.  If yes, then 
this section needs to be reviewed for completeness. 
 
Justification: The Guidelines doc is specific to policy assertion authors. 
 Providing guidance on creating new attachment mechanisms seems like a 
lower priority. 
 
Target: Guidelines for Policy Assertion Authors
 
Proposal: Remove Section 7.
 
[1] 
http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2006/ws/policy/ws-policy-guidelines.html?rev=1.8&content-type=text/html;%20charset=utf-8#best-practices-attachment
 
Received on Thursday, 30 November 2006 14:06:34 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:20:43 GMT