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

Re: Policy expressions with no wire manifestation

From: Anthony Nadalin <drsecure@us.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2006 08:07:41 -0500
To: "Sergey Beryozkin" <sergey.beryozkin@iona.com>
Cc: public-ws-policy@w3.org, public-ws-policy-request@w3.org, "Sergey Beryozkin" <sergey.beryozkin@iona.com>
Message-ID: <OFEA774963.7AD255BE-ON862571EF.00476CE1-862571EF.00481DA0@us.ibm.com>





In WS-SecurityPolicy we have an assertion like
<sp:MustSupportRefKeyIdentifier />, this is not marked as wsp:optional and
does has no effect on the actual communication, if there is not a
intersection then it will fail. I don't understand why you think that
assertions that have no effect on the actual communication need to be
marked as wsp:optional.

Anthony Nadalin | Work 512.838.0085 | Cell 512.289.4122


                                                                           
             "Sergey                                                       
             Beryozkin"                                                    
             <sergey.beryozkin                                          To 
             @iona.com>                "Sergey Beryozkin"                  
             Sent by:                  <sergey.beryozkin@iona.com>,        
             public-ws-policy-         Anthony Nadalin/Austin/IBM@IBMUS    
             request@w3.org                                             cc 
                                       <public-ws-policy@w3.org>,          
                                       <public-ws-policy-request@w3.org>   
             09/20/2006 04:35                                      Subject 
             AM                        Re: Policy expressions with no wire 
                                       manifestation                       
                                                                           
                                                                           
                                                                           
                                                                           
                                                                           
                                                                           




Hi there

That was a response in a hurry so I take it back. Before flooding the group
concalls with trivial issues I'd rather attempt to make my question as
clear as possible. Note that I may indeed be confused, but if so then I'd
appreciate an answer which would help.

Consider this example :

<wsp:Policy>
   <wsp:ExactlyOnce>
         <oasis:QOSGuarantee>
              <NeverFails/>
              <TheBestServiceInThisCategory verifiedBy="..."/>
         <oasis:QOSGuarantee>
   <wsp/ExactlyOnce>
<wsp:Policy>

This is an example of a policy with a single alternative. This alternative
contains non-optional assertions
defined by a policy profile spec published a month ago. These assertions
have no wire manifestations.
A ws-policy aware (requester) entity whose runtime has not been updated yet
to recognize <oasis:QOSGuarantee> is about to start communicating with the
service which advertizes this policy.

Given the fact that it's likely ws-policy aware requesters will refuse to
start talking to a service should they fail to support the above policy and
that the fact whether this requester supports this policy or not will have
no effect on the actual communication with the service this policy attached
to, my understanding is that such assertions with no wire manifestations
SHOULD be marked as wsp:optional :

<wsp:Policy>
   <wsp:ExactlyOnce>
         <oasis:QOSGuarantee wsp:optional="true">
              <!-- -->
         <oasis:QOSGuarantee>
   <wsp/ExactlyOnce>
<wsp:Policy>

This means a requester may use this policy for a service selection but
doesn't need to refuse talking to this service should it fail to recognize
the policy.

Does it make sense ?
What is the group's position on this issue ?

Thanks

Sergey Beryozkin
Iona Technologies





graycol.gif
(image/gif attachment: graycol.gif)

pic26976.gif
(image/gif attachment: pic26976.gif)

ecblank.gif
(image/gif attachment: ecblank.gif)

Received on Wednesday, 20 September 2006 13:09:54 GMT

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