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

RE: policy vocabulary, will not be applied, oh my!

From: David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>
Date: Wed, 9 May 2007 09:25:31 -0700
Message-ID: <4260A18CD3F05B469E67BC6C20464EAC062E9D@rcpbex01.amer.bea.com>
To: "Daniel Roth" <Daniel.Roth@microsoft.com>, "Anish Karmarkar" <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com>
Cc: "Ashok Malhotra" <ashok.malhotra@oracle.com>, "Asir Vedamuthu" <asirveda@microsoft.com>, "Christopher B Ferris" <chrisfer@us.ibm.com>, <public-ws-policy@w3.org>

Also, if you leave out optional behaviors out of your policy then
requesters than can only do the optional behaviour won't know to enable
those behaviors...

Cheers,
Dave 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-ws-policy-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:public-ws-policy-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Daniel Roth
> Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2007 5:14 PM
> To: Anish Karmarkar
> Cc: Ashok Malhotra; Asir Vedamuthu; Christopher B Ferris; 
> public-ws-policy@w3.org
> Subject: RE: policy vocabulary, will not be applied, oh my!
> 
> 
> Hi Anish,
> 
> > is policy always meant to be complete?
> 
> If you leave required behaviors out of your policy, then 
> requesters won't know to enable those behaviors and 
> intersection results won't be meaningful.
> 
> Daniel Roth
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Anish Karmarkar [mailto:Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2007 4:54 PM
> To: Daniel Roth
> Cc: Ashok Malhotra; Asir Vedamuthu; Christopher B Ferris; 
> public-ws-policy@w3.org
> Subject: Re: policy vocabulary, will not be applied, oh my!
> 
> Curious: is policy always meant to be complete?
> For example, in the case where there is only one alternative, 
> is there no unstated behavior?
> 
> -Anish
> --
> 
> Daniel Roth wrote:
> > Hi Ashok,
> >
> >
> >
> > The problem with "no claims" is that you no longer know if 
> a policy is 
> > complete or not (there may be unstated behaviors), which 
> means you can 
> > never be sure if you are going to interoperate.
> >
> >
> >
> > Daniel  Roth
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > *From:* Ashok Malhotra [mailto:ashok.malhotra@oracle.com]
> > *Sent:* Tuesday, May 08, 2007 2:18 PM
> > *To:* Daniel Roth; Asir Vedamuthu; Christopher B Ferris; 
> > public-ws-policy@w3.org
> > *Subject:* RE: policy vocabulary, will not be applied, oh my!
> >
> >
> >
> > Thanks, Dan, for clarifying.
> >
> >
> >
> > So, NOBI has implied negation.  We would rather not have 
> this.  Here 
> > is how I would phrase it.  Monica also suggested explicit phrasing.
> >
> >
> >
> > An alternative should express exactly those behaviors that are 
> > indicated by its assertions and make no claims about other 
> assertions.
> >
> >
> >
> > All the best, Ashok
> >
> > 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > --
> >
> > *From:* Daniel Roth [mailto:Daniel.Roth@microsoft.com]
> > *Sent:* Tuesday, May 08, 2007 1:35 PM
> > *To:* Ashok Malhotra; Asir Vedamuthu; Christopher B Ferris; 
> > public-ws-policy@w3.org
> > *Subject:* RE: policy vocabulary, will not be applied, oh my!
> >
> >
> >
> > Hi Ashok,
> >
> >
> >
> > Chris' proposal is actually exactly what I meant by NOBI.  An 
> > alternative should express exactly those behaviors that are 
> needed for 
> > interop and nothing else should be done.
> >
> >
> >
> > For example, if I have an alternative that says I require message 
> > security, then requesters should not also enable transport security 
> > and expect to interoperate.
> >
> >
> >
> > Chris' proposal looks good to me.
> >
> >
> >
> > Daniel Roth
> >
> >
> >
> > *From:* public-ws-policy-request@w3.org 
> > [mailto:public-ws-policy-request@w3.org] *On Behalf Of 
> *Ashok Malhotra
> > *Sent:* Tuesday, May 08, 2007 11:42 AM
> > *To:* Asir Vedamuthu; Christopher B Ferris; public-ws-policy@w3.org
> > *Subject:* RE: policy vocabulary, will not be applied, oh my!
> >
> >
> >
> > So, Asir, just to be clear, this position is different from 
> the NOIB 
> > (No Implied Behavior) that Dan espoused on last Wednesday's call.
> >
> >
> >
> > All the best, Ashok
> >
> > 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > --
> >
> > *From:* public-ws-policy-request@w3.org 
> > [mailto:public-ws-policy-request@w3.org] *On Behalf Of 
> *Asir Vedamuthu
> > *Sent:* Tuesday, May 08, 2007 9:22 AM
> > *To:* Christopher B Ferris; public-ws-policy@w3.org
> > *Subject:* RE: policy vocabulary, will not be applied, oh my!
> >
> >
> >
> > +1
> >
> >
> >
> > An alternative with one or more assertions indicates 
> behaviors implied 
> > by those, and only those assertions. If a policy 
> alternative does not 
> > specify a behavior then the alternative means the behavior 
> is not applied.
> >
> >
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> >
> >
> > Asir S Vedamuthu
> >
> > Microsoft Corporation
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > *From:* public-ws-policy-request@w3.org 
> > [mailto:public-ws-policy-request@w3.org] *On Behalf Of 
> *Christopher B 
> > Ferris
> > *Sent:* Tuesday, May 08, 2007 5:01 AM
> > *To:* public-ws-policy@w3.org
> > *Subject:* Re: policy vocabulary, will not be applied, oh my!
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > All,
> >
> > I've been thinking about this, and possible language that 
> would make 
> > things clear to the reader that an alternative's set of assertions 
> > implies that ONLY those behaviors implied by those assertions are 
> > applied in the context of an interchange governed by that policy 
> > alternative.
> >
> > Also, since there isn't an issue to go with this thread, and it may 
> > well end up with CR edits to the spec, I opened an issue (4544) in 
> > Bugzilla:
> >
> >         http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=4544
> >
> > The first paragraph in section 3.2 of the Framework currently reads:
> >
> > [Definition: A *policy alternative* is a potentially empty 
> collection 
> > of policy assertions 
> > 
> <http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/CR-ws-policy-20070330/#policy_assertion>.] 
> > An alternative with zero assertions indicates no behaviors. An 
> > alternative with one or more assertions indicates behaviors 
> implied by 
> > those, and only those assertions. [Definition: A *policy 
> vocabulary* 
> > is the set of all policy assertion types 
> > 
> <http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/CR-ws-policy-20070330/#policy_assertion_typ
> > e> used in a policy.] [Definition: A *policy alternative 
> vocabulary* 
> > is the set of all policy assertion types 
> > 
> <http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/CR-ws-policy-20070330/#policy_assertion_typ
> > e>
> > within the policy alternative
> > 
> <http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/CR-ws-policy-20070330/#policy_alternative>.
> > ] When an assertion whose type is part of the policy's 
> vocabulary is 
> > not included in a policy alternative, the policy 
> alternative without 
> > the assertion type indicates that the assertion will not be 
> applied in 
> > the context of the attached policy subject. See the example 
> in Section
> > *4.3.1 Optional Policy Assertions*
> > 
> <http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/CR-ws-policy-20070330/#Optional_Policy_Asse
> > rtions>
> >
> >
> > I would propose the following change:
> >
> > [Definition: A *policy alternative* is a potentially empty 
> collection 
> > of policy assertions 
> > 
> <http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/CR-ws-policy-20070330/#policy_assertion>.] 
> > An alternative with zero assertions indicates no behaviors. An 
> > alternative with one or more assertions indicates behaviors 
> implied by 
> > those, and only those assertions. No other behaviors are to 
> be applied 
> > for the alternative.
> >
> > The rest of the edits in the original proposal [1] remain unchanged.
> >
> > [1] 
> > 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007May/0003.html
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Christopher Ferris
> > STSM, Software Group Standards Strategy
> > email: chrisfer@us.ibm.com
> > blog: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/page/chrisferris
> > phone: +1 508 377 9295
> >
> > public-ws-policy-request@w3.org wrote on 05/07/2007 09:07:16 AM:
> >
> >>
> >>  +1,
> >>
> >>  (Thanks Chris, for providing an example. Makes it much 
> clearer for  
> >> understanding issue.)
> >>
> >>  regards, Frederick
> >>
> >>  Frederick Hirsch
> >>  Nokia
> >>
> >>
> >>  On May 2, 2007, at 5:19 AM, ext Sergey Beryozkin wrote:
> >>
> >>  > Hi Chris
> >>  >
> >>  > Would it be possible to post an example which would show a  > 
> >> realistic scenario where it's obvious the fact that the input  > 
> >> policy vocabulary is not included in the effective policy's  > 
> >> vocabulary may cause the problems for a client ? I just find it  > 
> >> difficult to understand the reasoning when policies A&B 
> are used in  
> >> > examples :-)  >  > Also, I don't understand why the 
> client can not 
> >> use the effective  > policy's vocabulary as the guidance on what 
> >> assertions can be  > applied. The fact that many more assertions 
> >> might've been involved  > in the intersection seems unimportant to 
> >> me, the client can not  > apply what the effective policy has now, 
> >> that is whatever  > assertions are in the selected alternative. I 
> >> think this is what  > Monica said in the other email (sorry if 
> >> misinterpreted that email  > reply).
> >>  >
> >>  > I hope the practical example will help to understand 
> the problem  
> >> > better  >  > Thanks, Sergey  > ----- Original Message -----  > 
> >> From: Christopher B Ferris  > To: public-ws-policy@w3.org  > Sent: 
> >> Tuesday, May 01, 2007 9:22 PM  > Subject: policy 
> vocabulary, will not 
> >> be applied, oh my!
> >>  >
> >>  >
> >>  > There are some related issues/questions/concerns that 
> have been  > 
> >> expressed by members  > of the WG with regards the framework 
> >> specification as it relates to  > the "will not be 
> applied" principle  
> >> > and the definions for "policy vocabulary", etc. Below, I have  > 
> >> enumerated these issues  > and suggest a path forward to address 
> >> those concerns.
> >>  >
> >>  > 1. The definition of "policy vocabulary" is 
> incompatible with  > 
> >> intersected policy as regards to  > the "will not be applied" 
> >> principle because post intersection, the  > resultant policy 
> >> expression  > does not carry the policy vocabulary of the input 
> >> policy  > expressions. Hence, if a provider  > had two 
> alternatives, 
> >> one with Foo and one without Foo, and the  > result of 
> intersection 
> >> determined  > that the alternative without Foo was 
> compatible with a 
> >> client's  > policy, then the resultant  > policy 
> expression would not 
> >> have in its vocabulary (as computed  > using the algorithim  > 
> >> currently specified) Foo and hence it would not be clear 
> whether  > 
> >> Foo carries with it  > the "will not be applied" semantic.
> >>  >
> >>  > Action-283 - 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/
> >>  > 2007Apr/0103.html
> >>  > Action-284 - 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/
> >>  > 2007Apr/0106.html
> >>  > Ashok email - 
> >> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/
> >>  > 2007Apr/0065.html
> >>  >
> >>  > 2. There is a degree of confusion regarding the "will not be  > 
> >> applied" semantic as it applies to nested policy.
> >>  > This is related to the interpretation of "policy 
> vocabulary" that  
> >> > many held prior to the clarification provided by  > 
> Microsoft  >  > 
> >> Asir's email on nested policy vocabulary - http://lists.w3.org/  > 
> >> Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Apr/0017.html
> >>  >
> >>  > 3. As a result, a number of email threads have sprung 
> up that  > 
> >> question the merits of the "will not be applied"
> >>  > semantic.
> >>  >
> >>  > Ashok - http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/
> >>  > 2007Apr/0065.html
> >>  > Dale - 
> >> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Apr/
> >>  > 0075.html
> >>  > Ashok - http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/
> >>  > 2007Apr/0101.html
> >>  > Dale - 
> >> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Apr/
> >>  > 0108.html
> >>  >
> >>  > It may be that the most prudent course forward would be to drop 
> >> the  > "will not be applied" semantic as relates  > policy 
> >> vocabulary. As a result, there is little need of a normative  > 
> >> definion for policy vocabulary or policy alternative  > 
> vocabulary, 
> >> as these definitions only served to allow one to  > 
> determine whether 
> >> the behavior implied by a  > given assertion carried the 
> "will not be 
> >> applied" semantic.
> >>  >
> >>  > Instead, we could simply state that the behavior 
> implied by an  > 
> >> assertion that is absent from a given alternative  > is not to be 
> >> applied in the context of the attached policy subject  > when that 
> >> alternative is engaged.
> >>  > This would provide clearer semantic (I believe) to 
> borth assertion  
> >> > and policy authors.
> >>  >
> >>  > The attached mark-up of the policy framework specification 
> >> contains  > the changes that I believe would  > be necessary to 
> >> affect this change.
> >>  >
> >>  > Impact analysis:
> >>  >
> >>  > - The proposed change does not affect the XML syntax  > 
> - Nor does 
> >> it impact the semantics of the namespace, therefore the  > 
> namesapce 
> >> URI can remain unchanged  > - It does not affect the 
> processing model 
> >> (normalization,  > intersection)  > - It does not impact testing 
> >> results to date  > - It does not affect any of the assertion 
> >> languages developed to date  >  > The related questsion 
> that needs to 
> >> be asked should we choose to  > adopt this proposal is:
> >>  >
> >>  >         Does this change affect any implementations?
> >>  >
> >>  > From analysis of the set of test cases, the answer is 
> not clear,  
> >> > because there were no tests that  > excercised either policy 
> >> vocabulary or the "will not be applied"
> >>  > semantic. Thus, it would be important that  > we check our 
> >> respective implementations to ascertain whether there  > 
> would be any 
> >> impact. From an IBM  > perspective, this change does not 
> impact our 
> >> implementation.
> >>  >
> >>  >
> >>  >
> >>  > Cheers,
> >>  >
> >>  > Christopher Ferris
> >>  > STSM, Software Group Standards Strategy  > email: 
> >> chrisfer@us.ibm.com  > blog: 
> >> http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/page/chrisferris
> >>  > phone: +1 508 377 9295
> >>
> >>
> >
> 
> 
Received on Wednesday, 9 May 2007 16:26:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:38:34 UTC