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

RE: [NEW ISSUE] 4561 clarification of domain-specific processing

From: Asir Vedamuthu <asirveda@microsoft.com>
Date: Tue, 22 May 2007 12:55:14 -0700
To: Christopher B Ferris <chrisfer@us.ibm.com>, "public-ws-policy@w3.org" <public-ws-policy@w3.org>
Message-ID: <C9BF0238EED3634BA1866AEF14C7A9E543152A5BE6@NA-EXMSG-C116.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>

Hi Chris,

I think you asked me this question when the WG was discussing the proposed non-matching example for Section 4.5. I misheard and misspoke. I did not see your question on IRC then.

The text in Section 4.5 says -

"If a domain-specific intersection processing algorithm is required this will be known from the QNames of the specific assertion types involved in the policy alternatives."

and

"Assertion parameters are not part of the compatibility determination defined herein but may be part of other, domain-specific compatibility processing."

If a domain were to leverage the policy intersection in the framework and specify domain specific intersection, the domain could ONLY specify intersection rules for assertion parameters.

To answer your specific question:

>can a domain define domain-specific processing that
>could state that empty nested policy IS compatible
>with non-empty nested policy?

No. If a domain were to leverage the policy intersection in the framework, the domain could not override the rules for processing nested policy expressions.

We hope this clarifies.

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: Wednesday, May 16, 2007 10:34 AM
To: public-ws-policy@w3.org
Subject: [NEW ISSUE] 4561 clarification of domain-specific processing


http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=4561

Title: clarification of domain-specific processing

Description: can a domain define domain-specific processing that could state
that empty nested policy IS compatible with non-empty nested policy? If so,
then I believe the spec should indicate with a MAY.

This was discussed during the telcon on 16 May
http://www.w3.org/2007/05/16-ws-policy-irc

Proposed resolution: suggest clarification text in section 4.5 and
primer/guidelines coverage that also explains this point.

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 Tuesday, 22 May 2007 19:59:15 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:20:51 GMT