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

FW: [Bug 4654] [Guidelines] Guidelines for Policy Attachment

From: Asir Vedamuthu <asirveda@microsoft.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2007 18:27:13 -0700
To: "'mhondo@us.ibm.com'" <mhondo@us.ibm.com>, "public-ws-policy@w3.org" <public-ws-policy@w3.org>
Message-ID: <C9BF0238EED3634BA1866AEF14C7A9E54437C32168@NA-EXMSG-C116.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>

Scrapping Microsoft comments that are relevant to issue 4654 from the Action 316 mail thread (See http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Jun/0052.html):

C) Section 5.7

8)
>Best Practice:  Preserve Context-Free Policies

That sounds like a bumper sticker. What is the best practice? Where is the one line description of the best practice? Who should follow this best practice?

10)
>Each domain should define any limitations at the policy subject level
>that might impact interoperability (i.e. WS-SecurityPolicy - binding
>abstraction to group capabilities per message exchange)

It is unclear what limitations should be defined or documented by a domain. Perhaps, 'limitation' may not be right word.

Regards,

Asir S Vedamuthu
Microsoft Corporation


-----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: Saturday, June 16, 2007 2:30 PM
To: public-ws-policy-qa@w3.org
Subject: [Bug 4654] [Guidelines] Guidelines for Policy Attachment


http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=4654

           Summary: [Guidelines] Guidelines for Policy Attachment
           Product: WS-Policy
           Version: FPWD
          Platform: PC
        OS/Version: Windows XP
            Status: NEW
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P2
         Component: Guidelines
        AssignedTo: mhondo@us.ibm.com
        ReportedBy: chrisfer@us.ibm.com
         QAContact: public-ws-policy-qa@w3.org


title: Guidelines for Policy Attachment
Target: Guidelines

Description: The current section on guidelines for Policy Attachment is only
for WSDL.


Proposal: this proposal has 4 parts:

part 1 --
----------
<change>  title of section 5.7
from
5.7 Considerations for Policy Attachment for WSDL
to
5.7 Considerations for Policy Attachment

------------------
part 2 --
----------
<add> new text & best practice

The Policy attachment mechanism used to communicate the policy assertions
should not affect or imply additional semantics in the interpretation of Policy
alternatives. If it did, each policy assertion would need to be written with
different (and possibly unknown) attachment mechanisms in mind. Assertion
authors are encouraged to use the policy subjects defined by the policy
attachments specification when possible.

Policy assertion authors should unambiguously identify the appropriate policy
subjects for their assertions. If the best practices are followed, and the
assertions are scoped according to their subject, then multiple policy domains
may be combined without conflict. Each domain should define any limitations at
the policy subject level that might impact interoperability.

Best Practice:  Preserve Context-Free Policies

------------------
part 3 --
----------
<add> example for  Best practice 24: Specify Preferred Attachment Point for an
Assertion
-------
An example of this is the Reliable Messaging Policy Assertion document. In
section 2.5.1 Sequence STR Assertion, the authors  "The STR assertion defines
the requirement that an RM Sequence MUST be bound to an explicit token that is
referenced from a wsse:SecurityTokenReference in the CreateSequence message.
This assertion MUST apply to [Endpoint Policy Subject]. This assertion MUST NOT
be used for an endpoint that does not also use the RM assertion".
------------------
part 4 --
----------
<add> new subsection-title (leave existing text as is)
5.7.1 Considerations for Policy Attachment for WSDL
Received on Saturday, 23 June 2007 01:27:30 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:20:52 GMT