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

RE: RE: Policy Retrieval Algorithms

From: Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 10:17:38 -0700
To: Paul Denning <pauld@mitre.org>
CC: Daniel Roth <Daniel.Roth@microsoft.com>, "public-ws-policy@w3.org" <public-ws-policy@w3.org>
Message-ID: <4D66CCFC0B64BA4BBD79D55F6EBC22571EE5D44003@NA-EXMSG-C103.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
I agree with Dan that nothing more is actually in the Policy spec to specify how the resources can be retrieved.

Paul Denning: If you think something specific needs to be added please open a new WS-Policy issue [1] and give us a clear rationale for the missing functionality.

/paulc

[1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/policy/#issues


Paul Cotton, Microsoft Canada
17 Eleanor Drive, Ottawa, Ontario K2E 6A3
Tel: (613) 225-5445 Fax: (425) 936-7329
mailto:Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com




________________________________
From: public-ws-policy-request@w3.org [mailto:public-ws-policy-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Daniel Roth
Sent: October 11, 2006 11:26 AM
To: Paul Denning; public-ws-policy@w3.org
Subject: RE: Policy Retrieval Algorithms

Hi Paul,

> there is no requirement that the IRI be resolvable

I would also note that the IRI CAN be resolvable.  Using resolvable IRIs seems like a natural and interoperable way of dealing with external references.

> defining a way to identify a retrieval mechanism could/should be in scope.

This seems unnecessary since IRI's already define a way to specify how to resolve them.  Supporting more creative resolution mechanisms seems like a Policy vNext feature.

Daniel Roth

________________________________
From: public-ws-policy-request@w3.org [mailto:public-ws-policy-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Paul Denning
Sent: Friday, October 06, 2006 12:47 PM
To: public-ws-policy@w3.org
Subject: Policy Retrieval Algorithms

[1] http://tinyurl.com/ot5x5#Policy_References

Section 4.3.4 states

"...there is no requirement that the IRI be resolvable; retrieval mechanisms are beyond the scope of this specification."

I would agree that defining various retrieval mechanisms would be out of scope, but defining a way to identify a retrieval mechanism could/should be in scope.

Perhaps adding

<proposal>

wsp:PolicyReference/@RetrievalAlgorithm

  This optional URI attribute specifies the Retrieval Algorithm being used to resolve an external policy expression identified by ./@URI.

</proposal>


Note that this is modeled after the DigestAlgorithm.  You would not provide @Digest without specifying the @DigestAlgorithm used to calculate it.

@Digest is opaque and you cannot determine the digest algorithm by looking at its value.

Likewise, we should treat @URI as opaque and provide an identifier for the algorithm that can be used to resolve the external policy expression.

Paul
Received on Wednesday, 18 October 2006 17:19:15 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:20:42 GMT