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

RE: Position on various issues

From: Ashok Malhotra <ashok.malhotra@oracle.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2006 09:24:06 -0700
To: "fsasaki@w3.org" <fsasaki@w3.org>, "public-ws-policy@w3.org" <public-ws-policy@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20060913092406464.00000002692@amalhotr-pc>

Felix:
I disagree with your contention that various issues are out-of-scope
or we-don't-have-time-to-discuss.

> > http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=3599 Need a URI 
> > structure to refer to WSDL 1.0 definitions, etc.

The spec defines how to attach policies to WSDL 1.0 components.
Thus, associating policies with WSDL 1.o components is considered important.
However, the external attachment mechanism in the spec cannot be used for
WSDL 1.0 components as there is no URI mechanism to refer to WSDL 1.0 components.
The above bug attempts to remedy this imbalance and so, I feel, is clearly in scope.

> > http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=3620 Policy 
> Attachment to WS-Addr EndpointReferences

I think this is going to a very common way for people to use WS-Policy.
So it seems strange to omit it from the spec.  Glen Daniels has made
a simple proposal. 


All the best, Ashok
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-ws-policy-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:public-ws-policy-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Felix Sasaki
> Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2006 11:36 AM
> To: public-ws-policy@w3.org
> Subject: Position on various issues
> 
> 
> 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/0
> 059.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 Wednesday, 13 September 2006 16:25:30 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:20:41 GMT