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

RE: Bug 4558: Scalability and performance problems with expressing allowable nested policy assertions

From: Ashok Malhotra <ashok.malhotra@oracle.com>
Date: Wed, 16 May 2007 06:57:57 -0700
To: "Sergey Beryozkin" <sergey.beryozkin@iona.com>, "public-ws-policy@w3.org" <public-ws-policy@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20070516065757404.00000003552@amalhotr-pc>

Yes, I believe that if we adopted this suggestion the WS-Addressing policies and matching semantics could be simplified.  It would be good if some of the Addressing folks could confirm.

All the best, Ashok

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-ws-policy-request@w3.org [mailto:public-ws-policy-
> request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Sergey Beryozkin
> Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2007 5:05 AM
> To: Ashok Malhotra; David Orchard; public-ws-policy@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Bug 4558: Scalability and performance problems with
> expressing allowable nested policy assertions
> 
> 
> Hi
> 
> Will it work with the WSAddressing nested <Policy> and say
> <Policy><NoNAnonymousResponse/></Policy> ?
> 
> The above two nesetd policies don't intersect, but if either of the
> options below is used then the above options will
> intersect...unless I'm missing something
> 
> Cheers, Sergey
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Ashok Malhotra" <ashok.malhotra@oracle.com>
> To: "David Orchard" <dorchard@bea.com>; <public-ws-policy@w3.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2007 12:53 PM
> Subject: RE: Bug 4558: Scalability and performance problems with
> expressing allowable nested policy assertions
> 
> 
> 
> +1
> 
> All the best, Ashok
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: public-ws-policy-request@w3.org [mailto:public-ws-policy-
> > request@w3.org] On Behalf Of David Orchard
> > Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2007 5:26 PM
> > To: public-ws-policy@w3.org
> > Subject: Bug 4558: Scalability and performance problems with expressing
> > allowable nested policy assertions
> >
> >
> > The policy intersection algorithm results in policy assertions with
> > nesting to
> > be verbosely expressed with all of the possible nested assertions marked
> > as
> > optional="true".  One example of this is SecurityPolicy with X509,
> > detailed in
> > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007May/0160.html.
> >
> >
> > The scalability problem is that it may be difficult to list and exchange
> > all
> > the possible nested assertions.  The performance problem is that such a
> > scale
> > may result in slow policy processers performing intersection.
> >
> > One counter-arguments are that the number of nested assertions is not
> > large
> > enough to warrant this optimization, and that the optimization of adding
> > optional="true" is sufficient.  The general argument of premature
> > optimization
> > applies.  This would be a close with no action or defer to v.Next.
> >
> > Proposal 1:
> > Update the policy intersection algorithm so that an empty policy
> > assertion
> > matches a policy assertion with a nested assertion resulting an the same
> > policy
> > assertion with a nested assertion.
> >
> > Proposal 2:
> > Provide an explicit wildcard to match any nested assertions.
> >
> 
> 
> 
Received on Wednesday, 16 May 2007 14:00:51 UTC

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