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

RE: RE: Revised proposal for Bug 3730

From: Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 10:08:01 -0700
To: Asir Vedamuthu <asirveda@microsoft.com>, Ashok Malhotra <ashok.malhotra@oracle.com>, Daniel Roth <Daniel.Roth@microsoft.com>, "public-ws-policy@w3.org" <public-ws-policy@w3.org>
Message-ID: <4D66CCFC0B64BA4BBD79D55F6EBC22571EE5D440FE@NA-EXMSG-C103.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>

We need a concrete proposal in order to close out the WSDL external attachment issues (issue 3730 and 3599).

The Oct 25 WG meeting touched on this thread and agreed that getting the following three questions answered via email would help us develop a concrete proposal for these two issues before the F2F meeting.

> (a) Two distinct wrapper elements for WSDL 11 and 20 sound good.

WG has expressed a preference for ONE wrapper element.  The MIME type of the resource should determine the semantics of the URI.  Asir and others expressed support for this position at the Oct 25 meeting.

> (b) These two wrapper elements (WSDL 11 and 20) are domain expressions.
> Just like other domain related work (security, reliability, transaction,
> etc.), these domain expressions can be in their own namespace names (for
> instance http://www.w3.org/2006/07/ws-policy/wsdl20). By minting new
> namespace names for domain expressions, WG can showcase this
> extensibility point.

WG has not yet decided if they want a separate namespace for this domain expression.

Pro position:
- Separates the "domain expression" into a separate namespace and keeps it separate from the main Policy namespace.

Con position:
- This might cause people to infer that the material in the second namespace is an "optional" feature that they don't have to implement in order to do WS-Policy.

> (c) Just like the policy language and assertions, the external
> attachment mechanism and domain expressions evolve independently. There
> is a clean separation between the external attachment mechanism and
> domain expression. To promote these, we suggest documenting these domain
> expressions in a separate document (for instance 'Web Services Policy -
> Domain Expressions').

WG has not yet decided if they want a separate document.

Pro:
- This would permit the work to advance on its own schedule separate from the Framework and Attachment specs.

Please express your opinions on items b) and c) above via email before the Nov 1 distributed meeting.

/paulc

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





> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-ws-policy-request@w3.org [mailto:public-ws-policy-
> request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Asir Vedamuthu
> Sent: October 18, 2006 11:28 AM
> To: Ashok Malhotra; Daniel Roth; public-ws-policy@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Revised proposal for Bug 3730
>
>
> Thank you Ashok. There are three other bits on 3730 and 3599:
>
> (a) Two distinct wrapper elements for WSDL 11 and 20 sound good.
>
> (b) These two wrapper elements (WSDL 11 and 20) are domain expressions.
> Just like other domain related work (security, reliability, transaction,
> etc.), these domain expressions can be in their own namespace names (for
> instance http://www.w3.org/2006/07/ws-policy/wsdl20). By minting new
> namespace names for domain expressions, WG can showcase this
> extensibility point.
>
> (c) Just like the policy language and assertions, the external
> attachment mechanism and domain expressions evolve independently. There
> is a clean separation between the external attachment mechanism and
> domain expression. To promote these, we suggest documenting these domain
> expressions in a separate document (for instance 'Web Services Policy -
> Domain Expressions').
>
> Regards,
>
> Asir S Vedamuthu
> Microsoft Corporation
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-ws-policy-request@w3.org
> [mailto:public-ws-policy-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Ashok Malhotra
> Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 3:28 PM
> To: Daniel Roth; public-ws-policy@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Revised proposal for Bug 3730
>
>
> Dan:
> You said ...
> > ... but it doesn't say what the implied Policy
> > Scopes and Policy Subjects are.  I'm guessing they should be
> > the same as the Policy Scopes and Subjects already defined
> > for WSDL 2.0 attachment.
>
> This is a good point.  If I look at the latest Policy Attachment spec it
> has
> a long section on WSDL 2.0 attachment with an extensive discussion of
> Policy
> Subjects and Scopes and merging.  I don't think we want to repeat this
> material
> for the external attachment section.  So, how about we add a paragraph
> that
> says something like:
>
> The semantics of associating policies with WSDL 2.0 components using the
> external
> attachment mechanism are exactly the same as if the policies had been
> attached directly
> to WSDL 2.0 components using the mechanisms described in section 5. The
> possible
> policy scopes are exactly those allowed in section 5.2 and the
> calculation of effective policies is done in exactly the same manner as
> described in section 5.4.
>
> All the best, Ashok
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Daniel Roth [mailto:Daniel.Roth@microsoft.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2006 8:59 AM
> > To: Ashok Malhotra; public-ws-policy@w3.org
> > Subject: RE: Revised proposal for Bug 3730
> >
> > Hi Ashok,
> >
> > Thanks for sending out a new proposal.  I see that you added
> > a wrapper element, which is great.
> >
> > The policy attachment spec uses the terms Policy Scope and
> > Policy Subject when defining attachment mechanisms.  You
> > attach policies to Policy Scopes which associates the
> > attached policy with all Policy Subjects within that Policy
> > Scope.  This language is also used to describe how policies
> > are merged when multiple policies are attached to different
> > scopes containing the same Policy Subject.  This proposal
> > describes how to use a WSDL 2.0 component reference as a
> > domain expression, but it doesn't say what the implied Policy
> > Scopes and Policy Subjects are.  I'm guessing they should be
> > the same as the Policy Scopes and Subjects already defined
> > for WSDL 2.0 attachment.
> >
> > Also the current proposal doesn't use any RFC language, and
> > it probably needs to if you want the proposal simply copied
> > into the attachment spec.  This could just be an action item
> > for the editors.
> >
> > Daniel Roth
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: public-ws-policy-request@w3.org
> > [mailto:public-ws-policy-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Ashok Malhotra
> > Sent: Friday, October 06, 2006 2:15 PM
> > To: public-ws-policy@w3.org
> > Subject: Revised proposal for Bug 3730
> >
> >
> > As requested, I have defined an element wrapper for the URI
> > Reference that indicated the WSDL 2.0 component.
> >
> > All the best, Ashok
> >
> >
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 25 October 2006 17:08:29 GMT

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