- From: Maryann Hondo <mhondo@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2006 14:23:11 -0400
- To: <public-ws-policy-eds@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <OFA4454417.33C7D4CB-ON872571BE.00595B82-852571BE.0064FF02@us.ibm.com>
As per my actions: http://www.w3.org/2006/07/27-ws-policy-minutes.html: <scribe> ACTION: editors to clear up 3.4 paragraphs about domain and also define domain expression [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/07/13-ws-policy-minutes.html#action15] Although the Action Items refers to text in section 3.4 there is no specific reference to "domain" in this section. Here is the list of my suggested changes for "domain" Maryann ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Proposed new definitions: ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Domain - The original etymological implication of the word domain carries the idea of "something ruled". In Information Technology it commonly refers to a machine or a host on the Internet.( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domain) A "WS-Policy Domain" is a logical grouping of assertions that a particular community has agreed to define (in conformance with the WS-Policy specifications) to facilitate the interoperability of web services within that community of interest. A "WS-Policy domain expression" is an XML representation of a capability or a constraint within the context of a WS-Policy domain or community of interest. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Proposed edits ( in bold and strikethrough) ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 1.1 Goals The goal of Web Services Policy 1.5 - Framework is to provide the mechanisms needed to enable Web services applications to specify policy information. Specifically, this specification defines the following: An XML Infoset called a policy expression that contains domain-specific, Web Service policy information. A core set of constructs to indicate how choices and/or combinations of domain-specific policy assertions apply in a Web services environment. .... 3.1 Policy Assertion A policy assertion identifies a behavior that is a requirement (or capability) of a policy subject. Assertions indicate WS-Policy domain -specific (e.g., security, transactions) semantics and are expected to be defined in separate, WS-Policy domain-specific specifications [i.e. WS-SecurityPolicy, WS-ReliableMessagingPolicy] .Assertions are strongly typed by the domain authors that define them. The policy assertion type is identified only by the XML Infoset [namespace name] and [local name] properties (that is, the qualified name or QName) of the root Element Information Item representing the assertion. Assertions of a given type MUST be consistently interpreted independent of their policy subjects. WS-Policy Domain authors MAY define that an assertion contains a policy expression as one of its [children]. Policy expression nesting is used by WS-Policy domain authors to further qualify one or more specific aspects of the original assertion. For example, security domain authors may define d an WS-Policy assertion describing a set of security algorithms to qualify the specific behavior of a security binding assertion. The XML Infoset of an assertion MAY contain a non-empty [attributes] property and/or a non-empty [children] property. Such content MAY be used to parameterize the behavior indicated by the assertion. For example, an assertion identifying support for a specific reliable messaging mechanism might include an attribute information item to indicate how long an endpoint will wait before sending an acknowledgement. WS-Policy Domain authors should be cognizant of the processing requirements when defining complex assertions containing additional assertion content or nested policy expressions. Specifically, WS-Policy domain authors are encouraged to consider when the identity of the root Element Information Item alone is enough to convey the 4.4 Policy Intersection Policy intersection is useful when two or more parties express policy and want to limit the policy alternatives to those that are mutually compatible. For example, when a requester and a provider express requirements on a message exchange, intersection identifies compatible policy alternatives (if any) included in both requester and provider policies. Intersection is a commutative, associative function that takes two policies and returns a policy. ... Because the set of behaviors indicated by a policy alternative depends on the domain-specific semantics of the collected assertions, determining whether two policy alternatives are compatible generally involves WS-Policy domain-specific processing. As a first approximation, an algorithm is defined herein that approximates compatibility in a WS-Policy domain-independent manner; specifically, for two policy alternatives to be compatible, they must at least have the same vocabulary (see Section 3.2 Policy Alternative). ... Assertion parameters are not part of the compatibility determination defined herein but may be part of other, domain-specific compatibility processing. ... As this example illustrates, compatibility between two policy assertions is based on assertion type and delegates parameter processing to domain -specific processing. ... Note that there are > 1 assertions of the type sp:SignedParts ; when the behavior associated with sp:SignedParts is invoked, the contents of both assertions are used to indicate the correct behavior. Whether these two assertions are compatible depends on the domain-specific semantics of the sp:SignedParts assertion. To leverage intersection, assertion authors are encouraged to factor assertions such that two assertions of the same assertion type are always (or at least typically) compatible.
Received on Wednesday, 2 August 2006 18:23:28 UTC