- From: Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2006 03:36:19 +0900 (JST)
- To: public-ws-policy@w3.org
This mails summarizes positions on some issues, as an input for the WG during the f2f. See http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2006Sep/0059.html . > > http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=3577 Semantics of successful > intersection determined by domain-specific assertion content I think this is out of scope, since we are not chartered to work on domain-specific content. > http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=3599 Need a URI structure to > refer to WSDL 1.0 definitions, etc. I think this is out of scope. I don't see this required by the charter. Given our hard time schedule, I think we will not be able to tackle this. > http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=3620 Policy Attachment to > WS-Addr EndpointReferences I think this is out of scope since we are not chartered to produce this mechanism. > http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=3621 Formal semantics I think this is out of scope, for the same reason as 3599. > http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=3622 Policy assertion > equivalence and generality I think this is out of scope, for the same reason as 3599. > http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=3694 WS-Policy Attachment > for WSDL 2.0 This was a mistake (thanks Asir for spotting that), I meant http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=3656 Using UsingAddressing Extension Element as a WS-Policy assertion. I think it depends on the addressing working group what they want to do. However, the W3C staff can help with the process related problems we have, which are due to the different state of the documents. Felix
Received on Tuesday, 12 September 2006 18:36:40 UTC