- From: ashok malhotra <ashok.malhotra@oracle.com>
- Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2007 13:18:05 -0800
- To: Rigo Wenning <rigo@w3.org>
- CC: Renato Iannella <renato@nicta.com.au>, Paul Denning <pauld@mitre.org>, public-pling@w3.org
OK. Let's start with usecases. Here is a simple usecase that comes from our developers WS-Policy defines Policy Intersection but the result is a Boolean. There is no feedback on why Policy Intersection failed. Often it is because the namespace of some assertion changed. If there was some feedback then some follow on action could be defined to correct the problem. All the best, Ashok Rigo Wenning wrote: >Dear all, > >Having done P3P and being part of the PRIME EU Project, I can tell you >that requirements are the wrong discussion. We have to start >discussing use cases that will create requirements. Some parts of the >requirements generated that way are already implemented by SAML, >XACML, kerberos and the like. Other things are more cutting edge. > >So instead of starting to talk about a general negotiation framework, >I would rather start to discuss the very concrete issue we to solve. > >Best, > >Rigo > > >On Wednesday 21 November 2007, ashok malhotra wrote: > > >>Policy Negotiation was not in the charter of WS-Policy. But, more >>importantly, although several people were interested, >>no one was able to put forward a coherent description of >>requirements in this area. If we want to move forward on this, >>someone shd take a stab at setting out what we need. >> >> >[..] > > >>Renato Iannella wrote: >> >> >[...] > > >>>Some work in this area - related to rights policy negotiation - >>>may help: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >http://people.cs.uct.ac.za/~aarnab/drm/papers/Arnab-Hutchison-DMP-IDP-3-Proposal.pdf > > > > -- All the best, Ashok
Received on Wednesday, 21 November 2007 21:21:33 UTC