W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-policy@w3.org > February 2007

RE: Action 218 Subject Attachment Extensibility in guidelines

From: Yalcinalp, Umit <umit.yalcinalp@sap.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 17:21:00 -0800
Message-ID: <2BA6015847F82645A9BB31C7F9D64165036B4D4F@uspale20.pal.sap.corp>
To: <Monica.Martin@Sun.COM>
Cc: <public-ws-policy@w3.org>

Many thanks to Sun for constructive feedback. 

Paul/Chris, maybe we can put it into next week's agenda to close [Issue
3987]. This section/action item was the remaining item to close the
issue.  

--umit

[Issue 3987] http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=3987

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Monica.Martin@Sun.COM [mailto:Monica.Martin@Sun.COM] 
> Sent: Wednesday, Feb 14, 2007 3:55 PM
> To: Yalcinalp, Umit
> Cc: public-ws-policy@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Action 218 Subject Attachment Extensibility in guidelines
> 
> Umit and Maryann,
> We'd suggest some minor editorial comments to this proposed text, and 
> consideration if a best practice may also be advised.
> 
> See .pdf and .htm attached with redlines.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> >Yalcinalp, Umit wrote: The following text completes our 
> action item 218 for Subject Attachment
> >Extensibility. It is proposed as a new subsection in Section 5. 
> >
> >Umit and Maryann
> >
> >[Action 218] http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/wspolicy/actions/218
> >Note: The text will use the reference that is already existing in the
> >guidelines document to WS-RM Policy. 
> >
> >
> >-------------------------------------
> >5.3 Subject Attachment Extensibility: 
> >Overtime, a policy expression may evolve to be applicable to policy
> >subjects different than the policy subjects that it was originally
> >designed for. When this type of evolution occurs, the author of the
> >assertion should carefully consider the applicability of 
> this usage with
> >respect to the compatibility of the assertion's semantics. When an
> >assertion needs to evolve to indicate a behavior that is no longer
> >compatible with its originally intended semantics or policy 
> subjects, a
> >new namespace should be designed to designate the new 
> behavior that is
> >signified with the new namespace. Section 5.2 further clarifies the
> >usage of multiple behaviors. 
> >In general, it is NOT recommended to deprecate policy subjects by
> >reducing the policy subjects that an assertion was 
> originally designed
> >for. 
> >When the assertion's semantics does not change to invalidate 
> any of the
> >original policy subjects but new policy subjects need to be added, it
> >may be possible to use the same assertion to designate the additional
> >policy subjects without a namespace change.  The authors 
> must retain the
> >compatible behavior of the policy assertion. For example, a policy
> >assertion for a protocol that is originally designed for 
> endpoint policy
> >subject may add message policy subject to indicate finer granular
> >attachment provided that endpoint policy subject is also 
> retained in its
> >design. This approach has been used by WS-RM Policy. 
> >
> >----------------------
> >
> >Dr. Umit Yalcinalp
> >Research Scientist
> >SAP Labs, LLC
> >Email: umit.yalcinalp@sap.com Tel: (650) 320-3095 
> >SDN: https://www.sdn.sap.com/irj/sdn/weblogs?blog=/pub/u/36238
> >--------
> >"Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's
> >character, give him power." Abraham Lincoln. 
> >
> >
> >
> >  
> >
> 
> 
Received on Thursday, 15 February 2007 01:18:59 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:20:47 GMT