W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-policy@w3.org > August 2006

RE: NEW ISSUE: Policy Negotiation

From: Ashok Malhotra <ashok.malhotra@oracle.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2006 15:05:40 -0700
To: "Asir Vedamuthu" <asirveda@microsoft.com>, "Toufic Boubez" <tboubez@layer7tech.com>, "public-ws-policy@w3.org" <public-ws-policy@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20060802150540207.00000002496@amalhotr-pc>

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
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-ws-policy-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:public-ws-policy-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Asir Vedamuthu
> Sent: Wednesday, August 02, 2006 1:59 PM
> To: Toufic Boubez; public-ws-policy@w3.org
> Subject: RE: NEW ISSUE: Policy Negotiation
> 
> 
> Hi Toufic,
> 
> > discuss the ramifications of this exclusion
> 
> If there are any ramifications to the framework and 
> attachment documents, the best way to move forward is to 
> raise them as concrete framework or attachment issues. This 
> path is consistent with the WG charter - 'The Working Group 
> will not engage in defining application or higher-level 
> infrastructure related to Web Services Policy including 
> storage, negotiation,'
> 
> > flag it as an item for follow-on work.
> 
> Agree - this is a good item for the V.Next charter. BTW - I 
> noticed that Chris created a new component target in Bugzilla 
> for V.Next charter: 'New Charter'. 
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Asir S Vedamuthu
> Microsoft Corporation
> 
> 
> ________________________________________
> From: public-ws-policy-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:public-ws-policy-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Toufic Boubez
> Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2006 3:44 PM
> To: public-ws-policy@w3.org
> Subject: RE: NEW ISSUE: Policy Negotiation
> 
> Folks,
> I apologise that this doesn't exactly fit the format that 
> Paul talked about this afternoon, but I actually sent the 
> email hours ago, before Paul's discussion, even though it 
> just appeared now.  --  Toufic
>  
> Toufic Boubez, Ph.D.
> Chief Technology Officer
>  
> LAYER 7 TECHNOLOGIES / Advancing the application network.
> 604.681.9377 x310 (w)   604.288.7970 (m) 
> tboubez@layer7tech.com (e)  www.layer7tech.com (w)
> 
> ________________________________________
> From: public-ws-policy-request@w3.org on behalf of Toufic Boubez
> Sent: Tue 7/11/2006 12:32 PM
> To: public-ws-policy@w3.org
> Subject: NEW ISSUE: Policy Negotiation
> Title - Policy Negotiation
>  
> Description -
> In Section 1.2 (Out of Scope) of the WG Charter [1], under 
> the section "Application Infrastructure", policy negotiation 
> is explicitly mentioned as out of scope. It would be useful 
> for the WG to discuss the ramifications of this exclusion, 
> and possibly flag it as an item for follow-on work.
>  
> Justification -
> Considering that the spec already defines an intersection 
> mechanism for reconciling requester and endpoint policies, 
> and considering that policy negotiation could be an important 
> real world usage use case (think for example of the SSL 
> handshake as an analogy), the topic cannot be ignored.
>  
> [1] Web Services Policy Working Group Charter, 
> http://www.w3.org/2006/04/ws-policy-charter.html
>  
> Toufic Boubez, Ph.D.
> Chief Technology Officer
>  
> LAYER 7 TECHNOLOGIES / Advancing the application network.
> 604.681.9377 x310 (w)   604.288.7970 (m) 
> tboubez@layer7tech.com (e)  www.layer7tech.com (w)
> 
> 
> 
Received on Wednesday, 2 August 2006 22:06:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:33:13 UTC