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

RE: Will there be a next version of WS-Policy?

From: Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2007 18:10:13 -0700
To: "ashok.malhotra@oracle.com" <ashok.malhotra@oracle.com>, "public-ws-policy@w3.org" <public-ws-policy@w3.org>
Message-ID: <4D66CCFC0B64BA4BBD79D55F6EBC22574A7D37D6B7@NA-EXMSG-C103.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>

FTR, when we discussed V.Next at the Dublin F2F the agenda included the following list of V.Next issues and a query to find them:

> 1. V.Next discussion
> Bug list:
> http://tinyurl.com/2c6ahb
> 3616 enh P4 All tboubez@layer7tech.com RESO WONT Policy Negotiation
> 3620 nor P2 Wind gdaniels@progress.com RESO LATE Policy Attachment to WS-Addr EndpointReferences
> 3622 nor P2 All bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk RESO WONT Policy assertion equivalence and generality
> 3639 nor P2 Wind ashok.malhotra@oracle.com RESO WONT Which policy alternative was selected?
> 4178 nor P2 All fabian.ritzmann@sun.com RESO WONT Declaration of policy domains in policy expressions
> 4179 nor P2 All fabian.ritzmann@sun.com RESO WONT Preferences for policy expressions
> 4292 nor P2 Wind fsasaki@w3.org RESO WONT Intersection mode is neither defaulted nor specified
> 4558 nor P2 Wind orchard@pacificspirit.com RESO FIXE Scalability and performance problems with expressing allo...

> We discussed this briefly in Dublin but AFAIK no decision was reached.

Actually the Dublin minutes record the following consensus position:
http://www.w3.org/2007/07/18-ws-policy-minutes.html#item08

> cferris: have I heard correctly? no one sees intense urgency in initiating new work.
>          consensus is that experience would benefit focus and market feedback would help on features.
> cferris: six to nine months, with more informal mechanisms for explorations
>          ... no burning "must do" tasks for this group's continuation directly following on our completion

/paulc

Paul Cotton, Microsoft Canada
17 Eleanor Drive, Ottawa, Ontario K2E 6A3
Tel: (425) 705-9596 Fax: (425) 936-7329


-----Original Message-----
From: public-ws-policy-request@w3.org [mailto:public-ws-policy-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of ashok malhotra
Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2007 6:00 PM
To: public-ws-policy@w3.org
Subject: Will there be a next version of WS-Policy?


We discussed this briefly in Dublin but AFAIK no decision was reached.
Dave O made the excellent point that if we wanted a next version before
2 years we should start asap.

Whether or not we want a next version of WS-Policy depends, of course,
on the requirements we have for vNext and whether these are compelling.
Looking through Bugzilla, here is what I found:

Issue 3616: Policy Negotiation
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=3616
In my view we need to define this better.  Dale Moburg had some ideas
based on negotiation in ebXML

Issue 3639: Which Policy Alternative was selected
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=3639
If intersection yields more than one compatible alternative, which
alternative is selected for the conversation and how is this
communicated between the parties?

Issue 4889: Policies depend on message properties
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=4889
The policy to be applied depends on a property of the message such as
customer ID.
This comes from a customer requirement

Issue 5045:  Why did intersection fail?
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=5045
I just added this as a requirement from our product folks.

I may have missed some.  Or there may be others that people have in mind
but not yet brought forward.  Please think about this, talk to your
product teams and recommend a course of action.

--
All the best, Ashok
Received on Friday, 14 September 2007 01:10:27 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:38:36 UTC