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

RE: Ordering of Assertions: Comment on WS-Policy Primer LCWD

From: Yendluri, Prasad <Prasad.Yendluri@softwareag.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 11:06:02 -0400
Message-ID: <5149CDBF9C1DD74EB9A1327B47BC286902A343C3@resmsg01.AME.ad.sag>
To: <ashok.malhotra@oracle.com>, "David Orchard" <dorchard@bea.com>
Cc: <public-ws-policy@w3.org>
Could policy for sequential acquisitions (in order) be an example of
this? :)

 http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071012/bs_nm/beasystems_oracle_dc_3 

 

Regards,

Prasad

-----Original Message-----
From: public-ws-policy-request@w3.org
[mailto:public-ws-policy-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of ashok malhotra
Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2007 1:33 PM
To: David Orchard
Cc: public-ws-policy@w3.org
Subject: Re: Ordering of Assertions: Comment on WS-Policy Primer LCWD

 

 

David:

Please answer the question.  Is it your position that there are no 

Policies where the order in which the assertions within a Policy 

Alternative are applied is important?

 

Ashok

 

David Orchard wrote:

 

>I think the onus is on you to prove something, rather than me to prove

>nothing, especially if you want the WG to do something.

> 

>I know you are arguing that some policies need ordering.  I'm arguing

>you need to show some policies that need ordering.

> 

>Cheers,

>Dave 

> 

>  

> 

>>-----Original Message-----

>>From: ashok malhotra [mailto:ashok.malhotra@oracle.com] 

>>Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2007 3:28 AM

>>To: David Orchard

>>Cc: public-ws-policy@w3.org

>>Subject: Re: Ordering of Assertions: Comment on WS-Policy Primer LCWD

>> 

>>I'll make it still shorter:

>> 

>>I'm arguing that SOME policies need ordering.  The Policy 

>>Framework says so and the fact the there are ordering 

>>assertions in WS SecurityPolicy confirms this.

>> 

>>Are you arguing that NO policies need ordering?

>> 

>>Ashok

>> 

>>David Orchard wrote:

>> 

>>    

>> 

>>>I'll make my note even shorter.  

>>> 

>>>What situations are those?

>>> 

>>>For the 2nd time, you have failed to specify a single situation that 

>>>requires a change to WS-Policy.  You've described a problem that 

>>>already has a solution and quotes from other people but 

>>>      

>>> 

>>those are not 

>>    

>> 

>>>answers to my question.

>>> 

>>>In the absence of any real-world problem, the obvious thing for 

>>>WS-Policy WG to do is to close with no action.

>>> 

>>>Cheers,

>>>Dave

>>> 

>>> 

>>> 

>>>      

>>> 

>>>>-----Original Message-----

>>>>From: ashok malhotra [mailto:ashok.malhotra@oracle.com]

>>>>Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2007 1:59 PM

>>>>To: David Orchard

>>>>Cc: public-ws-policy@w3.org

>>>>Subject: Re: Ordering of Assertions: Comment on WS-Policy 

>>>>        

>>>> 

>>Primer LCWD

>>    

>> 

>>>>Hi Dave:

>>>>I used the fact that WS-SecurityPolicy discusses order to 

>>>>        

>>>> 

>>motivate the 

>>    

>> 

>>>>need for order in at least some policies.

>>>>I also quoted from the note from Tony Rogers.  

>>>>        

>>>> 

>>Subsequently, there was 

>>    

>> 

>>>>a note from Bob Natale who agrees that order is important 

>>>>        

>>>> 

>>but does not 

>>    

>> 

>>>>like the solution I suggested.

>>>> 

>>>>What needs to be made clear is that order is not important in all 

>>>>policies, but there are situations where it is important 

>>>>        

>>>> 

>>and for these 

>>    

>> 

>>>>situations we need a solution.

>>>> 

>>>>Ashok

>>>> 

>>>>David Orchard wrote:

>>>> 

>>>>   

>>>> 

>>>>        

>>>> 

>>>>>>-----Original Message-----

>>>>>>From: public-ws-policy-request@w3.org 

>>>>>>[mailto:public-ws-policy-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of 

>>>>>>            

>>>>>> 

>>ashok malhotra

>>    

>> 

>>>>>>Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2007 9:56 AM

>>>>>>To: public-ws-policy@w3.org

>>>>>>Subject: Ordering of Assertions: Comment on WS-Policy Primer LCWD

>>>>>>  

>>>>>> 

>>>>>>       

>>>>>> 

>>>>>>            

>>>>>> 

>>>>><snip/>

>>>>> 

>>>>> 

>>>>>     

>>>>> 

>>>>>          

>>>>> 

>>>>>>In many cases the

>>>>>>order in which assertions are processed may not matter, but

>>>>>>       

>>>>>> 

>>>>>>            

>>>>>> 

>>>>where it

>>>>   

>>>> 

>>>>        

>>>> 

>>>>>>does matter do we need to specify a special assertion for

>>>>>>       

>>>>>> 

>>>>>>            

>>>>>> 

>>>>every pair

>>>>   

>>>> 

>>>>        

>>>> 

>>>>>>of assertions that need to be ordered? Clearly, this is not

>>>>>>       

>>>>>> 

>>>>>>            

>>>>>> 

>>>>feasible

>>>>   

>>>> 

>>>>        

>>>> 

>>>>>>as the Policy processing engine will need to be undated

>>>>>>       

>>>>>> 

>>>>>>            

>>>>>> 

>>>>whenever a new

>>>>   

>>>> 

>>>>        

>>>> 

>>>>>>ordering assertion is added. So, what we need is a 

>>>>>>            

>>>>>> 

>>general-purpose 

>>    

>> 

>>>>>>ordering assertion.

>>>>>>  

>>>>>> 

>>>>>>       

>>>>>> 

>>>>>>            

>>>>>> 

>>>>>Your note jumps from assumption to conclusion to design with great 

>>>>>speed, indeed from assumption to conclusion within 3

>>>>>     

>>>>> 

>>>>>          

>>>>> 

>>>>sentences.  Those

>>>>   

>>>> 

>>>>        

>>>> 

>>>>>3 fleety sentences do not answer my previous emails central

>>>>>     

>>>>> 

>>>>>          

>>>>> 

>>>>question of

>>>>   

>>>> 

>>>>        

>>>> 

>>>>>"when does order matter?".  In case my question was 

>>>>>          

>>>>> 

>>missed, perhaps 

>>    

>> 

>>>>>because of burdensom length of my previous message, I'll ask

>>>>>     

>>>>> 

>>>>>          

>>>>> 

>>>>again more

>>>>   

>>>> 

>>>>        

>>>> 

>>>>>succinctly:

>>>>> 

>>>>>When does order matter?  

>>>>> 

>>>>>Until the use case is agreed by the WG, design discussions 

>>>>>          

>>>>> 

>>are very 

>>    

>> 

>>>>>premature IMHO.

>>>>> 

>>>>>Cheers,

>>>>>Dave

>>>>> 

>>>>> 

>>>>> 

>>>>> 

>>>>>     

>>>>> 

>>>>>          

>>>>> 

>>>>--

>>>>All the best, Ashok

>>>> 

>>>>   

>>>> 

>>>>        

>>>> 

>>> 

>>> 

>>>      

>>> 

>>--

>>All the best, Ashok

>> 

>>    

>> 

 

 

-- 

All the best, Ashok

 
Received on Friday, 12 October 2007 16:28:56 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:20:53 GMT