Re: Action-90 Review

ok,
I guess i'm getting confused with the way the diffs show the changes.
it looks like its new text.

Maryann



Frederick Hirsch <frederick.hirsch@nokia.com> 
Sent by: public-ws-policy-eds-request@w3.org
11/30/2006 11:01 AM

To
Maryann Hondo/Austin/IBM@IBMUS
cc
Frederick Hirsch <frederick.hirsch@nokia.com>, "ext Asir Vedamuthu" 
<asirveda@microsoft.com>, public-ws-policy-eds@w3.org, 
public-ws-policy-eds-request@w3.org
Subject
Re: Action-90 Review







I think you should raise this as a guidelines issue, unless it is a 
question about the editorial changes I made.

I also have a few issues about the guidelines content to raise but 
that should not hold up getting the document out.

If this is a generic issue I think it should be logged as an issue to 
the Policy work group.

regards, Frederick

Frederick Hirsch
Nokia


On Nov 30, 2006, at 8:31 AM, ext Maryann Hondo wrote:

>
> Frederick,
>
> In general the edits look good.
> I have some questions about  the following section[4.4.3 
> Considerations for choosing parameters vs nesting]:
>
> Are these assertions designed for the same policy subject?
> Do these assertions represent dependent behaviors?
> If the answers are yes to both of these questions then leveraging 
> nested policy expressions is something to consider. Keep in mind 
> that a nested policy expression participates in the policy 
> intersection algorithm. If a requester uses policy intersection to 
> select a compatible policy alternative then the assertions in a 
> nested policy expression play a first class role in the outcome. 
> There is one caveat to watch out for: policy assertions with deeply 
> nested policy can greatly increase the complexity of a policy and 
> should be avoided when they are not needed.
>
> with regard to the first question, I don't think this is explained 
> at all in the following paragraph, so i'm not sure what the value 
> of the question is, and if it is going to be there, I think we need 
> to explain what the alternatives are if both answers are NOT yes.
>
> Maryann
>
>
> Frederick Hirsch <frederick.hirsch@nokia.com>
> Sent by: public-ws-policy-eds-request@w3.org
> 11/29/2006 11:06 PM
>
> To
> "ext Asir Vedamuthu" <asirveda@microsoft.com>
> cc
> Frederick Hirsch <frederick.hirsch@nokia.com>, <public-ws-policy- 
> eds@w3.org>
> Subject
> Re: Action-90 Review
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Thanks for noting these editorial issues.
>
> I have corrected all of these as part of this editorial pass, with
> the following exceptions:
>
> > 4.5.2 Optional behavior at runtime
> >
> > s/Leaving the semantics undescribed/Leaving the semantics not or 
> under
> > specified/
>
> changed to "Leaving the semantics not specified or incompletely
> specified"
>
> > s/See also 4.3.3 Self Describing Messages . /See also 4.3.3 Self
> > Describing Messages./
>
> Issue here seems to be in the specref target, so I didn't touch this
> since it could break elsewhere.
>  "See also <specref ref="self-describing"/>."
>
> regards, Frederick
>
> Frederick Hirsch
> Nokia
>
>
> On Nov 29, 2006, at 9:10 PM, ext Asir Vedamuthu wrote:
>
> > ACTION-90 [1] - Review Action 77 snapshot (document is at
> > http://tinyurl.com/yjpbyf
> >
> > Please find below suggestions to fix typos, grammar and spaces. I
> > request other editors to review Action 77 snapshot at
> > http://tinyurl.com/yjpbyf
> >
> > [1] http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/wspolicyeds/actions/90
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Asir S Vedamuthu
> > Microsoft Corporation
> >
> >
> > ----- Notation Used -----
> >
> > s/Mary/Marie/ Change most recent occurrence of "Mary" to "Marie". 
> The
> > old string is currently treated as a literal string -- not a regex.
> >
> > s/Mary/Marie/G Change all previous and future occurrences of 
> "Mary" to
> > "Marie" (within this document).
> >
> >
> > ----- Typos, Grammar and Spaces for Action 77 -----
> >
> > Table of Contents:
> >
> > s/parameters vs nesting/parameters vs. nesting/
> >
> >
> > 1. Introduction
> >
> > s/consistent compinations/consistent combinations/
> > s/metadata exxpression/metadata expression/
> > s/Web Services Policy 1.5 - Guidelines for Policy Assertion Authors
> > is a
> > resource primarily for assertion authors that provides guidelines
> > on the
> > use of Web/Web Services Policy 1.5 - Guidelines for Policy Assertion
> > Authors is a resource primarily for assertion authors and provides
> > guidelines on the use of Web/
> >
> >
> > 3.1.1 WS-Policy Authors
> >
> > s/WS-SecurityPolicy pecification/WS-SecurityPolicy specification/
> >
> >
> > 3.1.3 Providers
> >
> > s/policies it is uesful/policies it is useful/
> >
> >
> > 4. General Guidelines for WS-Policy Assertion Authors
> >
> > s/validation in their desgin/validation in their design/
> > s/relies on the Qname/relies on the QName/
> > s/provides somes/provides some/
> >
> >
> > 4.1 Assertions and Their Target Use
> >
> > s/Once the range of policy subjects are/Once the range of policy
> > subjects is/
> > s/A eferencing mechanism/A referencing mechanism/
> >
> >
> > 4.2 Authoring Styles
> >
> > s/the @optional attribute/the wsp:optional attribute/
> >
> >
> > 4.3.1 Minimal Approach
> >
> > s/a way that eflects/a way that effects/
> >
> >
> > 4.3.3 Self Describing Messages
> >
> > s/when messages can not/when messages cannot/
> > s/Best practice:Policy/Best practice: Policy/
> >
> >
> > 4.3.4 Single Domains
> >
> > s/some might say its/some might say it is/
> >
> >
> > 4.4.2 Nested Assertions
> >
> > s/Thesp:AlgorithmSuite assertion/The sp:AlgorithmSuite assertion/
> > s/Setting aside the details of using transport-level security,,/
> > Setting
> > aside the details of using transport-level security,/
> >
> >
> > 4.4.3 Considerations for choosing parameters vs. nesting
> >
> > s/for selecting parameters or nesting of assertions,/for selecting
> > parameters or nesting of assertions/
> >
> >
> > 4.5.1 Optional behavior in Compact authoring
> >
> > s/using wsp:optional attribute/using wsp:Optional attribute/
> >
> >
> > 4.5.2 Optional behavior at runtime
> >
> > s/Note that in order for an optional behaviors to be engaged/Note 
> that
> > in order for an optional behavior to be engaged/
> > s/[4.3.3 Self Describing Messages ]/[4.3.3 Self Describing 
> Messages]/
> > s/specific endpoint when optional behavior is engaged ./specific
> > endpoint when optional behavior is engaged./
> > s/Leaving the semantics undescribed/Leaving the semantics not or 
> under
> > specified/
> > s/policy assertion authors should consider to describe/policy
> > assertion
> > authors should consider describing/
> > s/See also 4.3.3 Self Describing Messages . /See also 4.3.3 Self
> > Describing Messages./
> >
> >
> > 4.6 Typing Assertions
> >
> > s/(endpoints) or artifacts ( messages)/(endpoints) or artifacts
> > (messages)/
> > s/indicates which Qnames/indicates which QNames/
> >
> >
> > 4.7 Levels of Abstraction in WSDL
> >
> > s/This resulted in the finer granularity of the assertion to 
> apply at
> > the message policy subject, but the assertion semantics also 
> indicates
> > that the if the senders choose to engage RM semantics (although not
> > specified via attachment in WSDL at incoming messages), the 
> providers
> > will honor the engagement of RM./This resulted in the finer
> > granularity
> > of the assertion to apply at the message policy subject, but the
> > assertion semantics also indicates that if a sender chose to 
> engage RM
> > semantics (although not specified via attachment in WSDL at incoming
> > messages), the providers will honor the engagement of RM./
> >
> >
> > 6. Inter-domain Policy and Composition Issues
> >
> > s/, utilization of WS-Security Policy with other protocols affect/,
> > utilization of WS-Security Policy with other protocols affects/
> >
> >
> > 7.3 Appropriate Attachment: Identifying Assertion Sources
> >
> > s/( in WSDL, the source/(in WSDL, the source/
> > s/( using WS-Trust)/(using WS-Trust)/
> >
> >
> > 8. Scenario and a worked example
> >
> > s/CompanyA/Company A/G
> > s/( Policy, All and ExactlyOne)/(Policy, All and ExactlyOne)/
> > s/ProfileA/Profile A/G
> > s/( not expanded)/(not expanded)/
> > s/Since CompanyA has decided to use well known policy expressions 
> that
> > are themselves part of a specification/Since CompanyA has decided
> > to use
> > well known policy expressions that are part of a specification/
>
>
>