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: Sergey Beryozkin <sergey.beryozkin@iona.com>
Date: Wed, 16 May 2007 17:42:31 +0100
Message-ID: <026401c797d9$328d0ab0$c301020a@sberyoz>
To: "David Orchard" <dorchard@bea.com>, "Ashok Malhotra" <ashok.malhotra@oracle.com>, <public-ws-policy@w3.org>
Hi

Your proposal is clear and makes sense. My point was that if this proposal were accepted then it would make the current empty WSA nested Policy assertion (it can't intersect with a more qualified one) not working as desribed in the relevant metadata document, that is it will start intersecting, hence the WSA metadata document will need to provide some other mechanism to let the provider express the fact that it will support all types of a WSA responses for a given *single* message, which is what a nested Policy is 
about.
Do you see what I mean ?

Cheers, Sergey

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "David Orchard" <dorchard@bea.com>
To: "Sergey Beryozkin" <sergey.beryozkin@iona.com>; "Ashok Malhotra" <ashok.malhotra@oracle.com>; <public-ws-policy@w3.org>
Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2007 4:49 PM
Subject: RE: Bug 4558: Scalability and performance problems with expressing allowable nested policy assertions


Confused?  How so?  I believe this changes the design of matching.  And
I think the "intent" is that by design of ws-addressing assertions it
does match.

Cheers,
Dave

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sergey Beryozkin [mailto:sergey.beryozkin@iona.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2007 8:46 AM
> To: David Orchard; Ashok Malhotra; public-ws-policy@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Bug 4558: Scalability and performance problems
> with expressing allowable nested policy assertions
>
> Hi Dave
>
> I'm confused :-). WSAddressing empty nested <Policy> does not
> match the more qualified WSA nested Policy by design, but
> this suggestion will make it match in a generic fashion even
> though by design it can't match...
>
> Cheers, Sergey
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "David Orchard" <dorchard@bea.com>
> To: "Sergey Beryozkin" <sergey.beryozkin@iona.com>; "Ashok
> Malhotra" <ashok.malhotra@oracle.com>; <public-ws-policy@w3.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2007 4:37 PM
> Subject: RE: Bug 4558: Scalability and performance problems
> with expressing allowable nested policy assertions
>
>
> It's exactly intended to solve that kind of use case.  The caveat is
> that I'm not sure how much of a performance/scalability
> problem there is
> with WS-Addressing...
>
> Cheers,
> Dave
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Sergey Beryozkin [mailto:sergey.beryozkin@iona.com]
> > 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/0
> > 160.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 16:41:28 UTC

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