- From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2006 23:09:35 +0000
- To: public-ws-policy-qa@w3.org
- CC:
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=3616 ------- Comment #2 from tboubez@layer7tech.com 2006-09-13 23:09 ------- I agree with Ashok and Toufic that this is an important case. At the same time, I think that adding the negotiation definition in any algorithmic form is premature at this point, and it may potentially impose unnecessary limitations on the future WS-Policy use cases. One can argue that policy negotiation may involve some intermediary (as in the case of policy enforcement) or be done out-of-band. I also think that policy negotiation in the form of policy exchange will be unacceptable in many cases. I agree with Asir that the specification should adhere to the Charter, and that negotiation problems, use cases, etc - as discussed in the thread below - should be postponed and raised as framework issues. Regards, Yakov Sverdlov CA -----Original Message----- On Behalf Of Ashok Malhotra I have no objection to postponing negotiation to v.Next but it would be nice to get a definition on the table. Here's a possible definition. 1. The two endpoints exchange policies. If they agree on a policy alternative the negotiation stops. 2. If they cannot agree on an alternative then: EITHER: one of the endpoints introduces a new, or amended, policy and we go back to 1. OR: Policy negotiation fails. Toufic, if this something like what you had in mind? All the best, Ashok
Received on Wednesday, 13 September 2006 23:09:42 UTC