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

RE: 3553: Policy Compatibility Check must account for level of Nesting of Policy Alternatives

From: Maryann Hondo <mhondo@us.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2006 09:58:19 -0600
To: "Asir Vedamuthu" <asirveda@microsoft.com>
Cc: "Prasad Yendluri" <prasad.yendluri@webmethods.com>, public-ws-policy@w3.org, public-ws-policy-request@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF22AA2545.C65A7FB6-ON852571C4.0055CD78-852571C4.0057A9BB@us.ibm.com>
I have a question.....

what is insufficient about  the definition of "policy alternative" ? Is it 
that the text about policy operators  is separate from the definition?
Can we expand the definition to include this?


Maryann

[Definition: A policy alternative is a collection of policy assertions.]

Policy operators group policy assertions into policy alternatives.




"Asir Vedamuthu" <asirveda@microsoft.com> 
Sent by: public-ws-policy-request@w3.org
08/04/2006 08:40 PM

To
"Prasad Yendluri" <prasad.yendluri@webmethods.com>, 
<public-ws-policy@w3.org>
cc

Subject
RE: 3553: Policy Compatibility Check must account for level of Nesting of 
Policy Alternatives






For you convenience, I marked up the distinction in Section 4.4 using two 
different colors in the attached HTML document. If the distinction is 
insufficient, please let us know.

> what constitutes a "policy alternative" is not precisely defined.

I'll address this in my response to issue 3554.

Regards,
 
Asir S Vedamuthu
Microsoft Corporation

________________________________________
From: Prasad Yendluri [mailto:prasad.yendluri@webmethods.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, August 01, 2006 6:02 PM
To: Asir Vedamuthu; Prasad Yendluri; public-ws-policy@w3.org
Subject: RE: NEW ISSUE: Policy Compatibility Check must account for level 
of Nesting of Policy Alternatives

Hi Asir,

In section 4.4 Section 4.4 I do not see any text that distinguishes 
between policy and nested policy (I am looking here: 
http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2006/ws/policy/ws-policy-framework.html?content-type=text/html;%20charset=utf-8#Policy_Intersection
)

However the main issue as I see it is that, what constitutes a "policy 
alternative" is not precisely defined. More specifically an alternative in 
am embedded policy expression is not ruled out to constitute an 
alternative of the parent policy also. We need more precise definitions of 
policy, policy alternative etc. IMO.

Thanks.

Prasad 


________________________________________
From: public-ws-policy-request@w3.org 
[mailto:public-ws-policy-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Asir Vedamuthu
Sent: Tuesday, August 01, 2006 5:06 PM
To: Prasad Yendluri; public-ws-policy@w3.org
Subject: RE: NEW ISSUE: Policy Compatibility Check must account for level 
of N esting of Policy Alternatives

RE "There is scope however for interpretation, that if an alternative (at 
any nesting level) in one matches the alternative (at any nesting level) 
in the other, the two policies can be considered compatible."

In Section 4.4, the requested distinction is called out at the policy 
level:

- 'policy' vs. 'nested policy', and
- 'an alternative' vs. 'the alternative in the nested policy'

This distinction is consistently maintained throughout Section 4.4 which 
seems to clarify any ambiguity raised by this e-mail.

PS: I'll update your entry in Bugzilla.

Regards,
 
Asir S Vedamuthu
Microsoft Corporation
________________________________________
From: public-ws-policy-request@w3.org 
[mailto:public-ws-policy-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Prasad Yendluri
Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2006 4:10 PM
To: public-ws-policy@w3.org
Subject: NEW ISSUE: Policy Compatibility Check must account for level of N 
esting of Policy Alternatives

Title: Policy Compatibility Check must account for level of Nesting of 
Policy Alternatives
 
Description: Section 4.4 of the WS-Policy 1.5 - Framework specification 
states:

* "Two policies are compatible if an alternative in one is compatible with 
an alternative in the other. If two policies are compatible, their 
intersection is the set of the intersections between all pairs of 
compatible alternatives, choosing one alternative from each policy. If two 
policies are not compatible, their intersection has no policy 
alternatives."

However, per section 4.3.2 (Policy Assertion Nesting), a policy Assertion 
may contain a nested Policy. 

The intent of the above text is to check compatibility of alternatives at 
the top level of the subject policies only. There is scope however for 
interpretation, that if an alternative (at any nesting level) in one 
matches the alternative (at any nesting level) in the other, the two 
policies can be considered compatible.

In addition section 2.3 terminology defines a policy to be "collection of 
policy alternatives "only. 
No further constraints on the origin of alternatives in the collection.

Similarly section 3.3 (Policy) defines a policy to be: "a policy is a 
potentially empty collection of policy alternatives"

Justification:
There is scope for interpretation that needs to be eliminated. 
 
Target: WS-Policy 1.5 - Framework
 
Proposal - 

1. Tighten up the definition of policy to be specific about the (nesting 
level / origin of) "collection" of alternatives it groups. 
     I am Opening a separate new issue for it. If that is properly 
resolved, this issue is automatically resolved.
2.  Rephrase the policy compatibility statement to say "Two policies are 
compatible if a top level alternative in one is compatible with a top 
level alternative in the other."

Regards,
Prasad Yendluri


Received on Tuesday, 8 August 2006 15:58:11 UTC

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