RE: Ordering between assertions

I would suggest that Ashok open an issue for this.
 
I do agree that the effects / behaviours corresponding to some
assertions will be applied in some order (and indeed, I would require
that order to be specifiable by the originator of the message - I have
had requests for "sign then encrypt" as well as "encrypt then sign" - so
the order must not be specified by fiat outside the message). 
 
While I can appreciate the desire to avoid specifying the order of
applying the behaviours, I think the line has been crossed when
suggesting the possibility of an ordering assertion. By suggesting it, I
believe the WG is obligated to provide an example of a possible form :-)
 
Tony Rogers
tony.rogers@ca.com <blocked::mailto:tony.rogers@ca.com> 
 

________________________________

From: public-ws-policy-request@w3.org
[mailto:public-ws-policy-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Christopher B
Ferris
Sent: Wednesday, 15 August 2007 10:42
To: ashok.malhotra@oracle.com
Cc: Anish Karmarkar; public-ws-policy@w3.org;
public-ws-policy-request@w3.org
Subject: Re: Ordering between assertions



Ashok, 

Are you opening a new issue? or simply making an observation? 

If the former, please create a bugzilla issue for this so that we can
track it. 

Cheers, 

Christopher Ferris
STSM, Software Group Standards Strategy
email: chrisfer@us.ibm.com
blog: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/page/chrisferris
phone: +1 508 234 2986 

public-ws-policy-request@w3.org wrote on 08/13/2007 06:39:12 PM:

> 
> Consider a policy that includes Reliable Messaging, Header Encryption 
> and Signing.
> It seems clear that the Reliable Messaging headers should be added 
> first, the headers encrypted next that finally the signature created
and 
> affixed.  At the receiving end, the signature should be checked first,

> the headers decrypted next and finally the Reliable Messaging headers 
> processed.  This implies that the Policy assertions be processed in a 
> definite sequence.
> 
> The framework document says:
> "Assertions within an alternative are not ordered, and thus aspects
such 
> as the order in which behaviors (indicated by assertions) are applied
to 
> a subject 
> <http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/PR-ws-policy-20070706/#policy_subject> are 
> beyond the scope of this specification. However, authors can write 
> assertions that control the order in which behaviors are applied."
> 
> It seems to me that this is a fairly common scenario and it may be
good 
> to show an example, in the Guidelines document,.of how such an
ordering 
> assertion may be authored.
> -- 
> All the best, Ashok
>