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

RE: [Bug 4210] WSDL WG Editorial comments on Framework

From: Asir Vedamuthu <asirveda@microsoft.com>
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2007 01:38:03 -0800
Message-ID: <1E0F0378382054439F14D5450650478F0BFD78DC@RED-MSG-42.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, <public-ws-policy@w3.org>

This e-mail outlines proposed actions to resolve issue 4210.


>1. No relationship to XML Base [1] is defined 
>as of yet in Framework. As issue
>has been raised on this with the WG [2].

Latest version of the Framework and Attachment drafts explicitly call
out support for XML Base. See:
http://tinyurl.com/y58asw 
http://tinyurl.com/th6ez 

Action: None


>2. Policy Assertion (3.1)
>- The definition of policy assertion appears to be redundant.
>- The style of artefact definition appears a bit cumbersome
>("[Definition: An ignorable policy assertion is ...]").

We note that there is text in Section 4.5 and 4.6 that depend on this
definition.

Action: None


>3. Policy Alternative (3.2)
>- The definition of policy alternative needs 
>some elaboration (e.g. "A policy alternative 
>is a potentially empty collection of policy 
>assertions which are used indicate an available 
>set of behaviors."). As is it doesn't lay out 
>well what alternatives actually are before 
>delving into their semantics. The same approach 
>can be applied to 3.3 Policy.

Framework says, "A policy alternative is a potentially empty collection
of policy assertions" and "A policy assertion represents an individual
requirement, capability ..." Can't think of a reason why the suggested
editorial change is an improvement.

Action: None


>It is suggested that "(i) Normal form of a 
>policy expression (ii) Compact form of a 
>policy expression (iii) Identification of 
>policy expressions and (iv) Policy intersection" 
>be reordered to read "(i) Normal form of a 
>olicy expression (ii) Identification of 
>policy expressions (iii) Compact form of a 
>policy expression and (iv) Policy intersection.

This sentence is a duplicate of the TOC [1] and inconsistent with the
latest content in Section 4. We recommend dropping this sentence.

[1]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Jan/0109.html
(See Item 5)
 
Action: drop this sentence.

 
>4. Policy Identification (4.1)
>- Some additional clarification may be needed 
>around the use of xml:id in the
>Framework, as in associating a policy expression 
>with the IRI-reference.

Please elaborate on 'some additional clarification'.

Action: None


>5. Compact Policy Expression
>- Document Information Item should reference its 
>definition in XML Infoset [3], as does Element Information 
>Item [4].

Suggested editorial changes to resolve item 5:

a) s/Start with the [document element] property D of the Document
Information Item/Start with the [document element] property D of the
Document Information Item (as defined in [XML Information Set])/

b) s/Expand Element Information Items in the [children] property of
D/Expand Element Information Items (as defined in [XML Information Set])
in the [children] property of D/

Action: adopt editorial changes a) and b) above.


>6. Policy Assertion Nesting (4.3.2)
>- A nested policy in normal form has the same structure 
>as the enclosing policy. However, the example in this section 
>does not reflect this. An issue
>has been raised with the WG and a resolution proposed [5].

Resolution to issue 4038 is now in the latest version of the editors
draft (See http://tinyurl.com/yn8z4u) We assume that item 6 doesn't
require any new changes.

Action: None


>7. Security Considerations (5)
>- Policy/assertion "signing" is RECOMMENDED but 
>there is no reference to what is indicated by "signing" 
>or to any standards work (W3C or other) around any
>such signing. Does this refer to WSS signatures [6]? 
>The use of "signing" itself in this language should 
>reference any such standard(s).

Section 5 Paragraph 3, Framework draft, carries an explicit reference to
WS-Security 1.0.

Action: None


Regards,
 
Asir S Vedamuthu
Microsoft Corporation


-----Original Message-----
From: public-ws-policy-request@w3.org
[mailto:public-ws-policy-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Paul Cotton
Sent: Friday, January 12, 2007 4:10 PM
To: public-ws-policy@w3.org
Subject: [Bug 4210] WSDL WG Editorial comments on Framework



-----Original Message-----
From: public-ws-policy-qa-request@w3.org
[mailto:public-ws-policy-qa-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of
bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org
Sent: January 12, 2007 6:56 PM
To: public-ws-policy-qa@w3.org
Subject: [Bug 4210] WSDL WG Editorial comments on Framework


http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=4210

           Summary: WSDL WG Editorial comments on Framework
           Product: WS-Policy
           Version: LC
          Platform: All
        OS/Version: All
            Status: NEW
          Severity: minor
          Priority: P2
         Component: Framework
        AssignedTo: fsasaki@w3.org
        ReportedBy: jonathan@wso2.com
         QAContact: public-ws-policy-qa@w3.org


1. No relationship to XML Base [1] is defined as of yet in Framework. As
issue
has been raised on this with the WG [2].

2. Policy Assertion (3.1)
- The definition of policy assertion appears to be redundant.
- The style of artefact definition appears a bit cumbersome
("[Definition: An
ignorable policy assertion is ...]"). As is these definitions appear to
be
placeholders. In their place text could be written that flows better,
e.g. the
second paragraph of 3.1 could be written as: "An assertion MAY indicate
that it
is an ignorable policy assertion (see 4.4 Ignorable Policy Assertions).
An
ignorable policy assertion is one that may be ignored for policy
intersection
(as defined in 4.5 Policy Intersection). By default, an assertion is not
ignorable for policy intersection."

3. Policy Alternative (3.2)
- The definition of policy alternative needs some elaboration (e.g. "A
policy
alternative is a potentially empty collection of policy assertions which
are
used indicate an available set of behaviors."). As is it doesn't lay out
well
what alternatives actually are before delving into their semantics. The
same
approach can be applied to 3.3 Policy.
- It is suggested that "(i) Normal form of a policy expression (ii)
Compact
form of a policy expression (iii) Identification of policy expressions
and (iv)
Policy intersection" be reordered to read "(i) Normal form of a policy
expression (ii) Identification of policy expressions (iii) Compact form
of a
policy expression and (iv) Policy intersection."

4. Policy Identification (4.1)
- Some additional clarification may be needed around the use of xml:id
in the
Framework, as in associating a policy expression with the IRI-reference.

5. Compact Policy Expression
- Document Information Item should reference its definition in XML
Infoset [3],
as does Element Information Item [4].

6. Policy Assertion Nesting (4.3.2)
- A nested policy in normal form has the same structure as the enclosing
policy. However, the example in this section does not reflect this. An
issue
has been raised with the WG and a resolution proposed [5].

7. Security Considerations (5)
- Policy/assertion "signing" is RECOMMENDED but there is no reference to
what
is indicated by "signing" or to any standards work (W3C or other) around
any
such signing. Does this refer to WSS signatures [6]? The use of
"signing"
itself in this language should reference any such standard(s).

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/REC-xmlbase-20010627/
[2]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2006Dec/0022.html
[3]
http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-xml-infoset-20040204/#infoitem.document
[4] http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-xml-infoset-20040204/#infoitem.element
[5]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2006Dec/0034.html
[6]
http://docs.oasis-open.org/wss/2004/01/oasis-200401-wss-soap-message-sec
urity-1.0.pdf
Received on Sunday, 14 January 2007 09:46:26 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:20:45 GMT