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

Action Item http://www.w3.org/2006/07/13-ws-policy-minutes.html#action24

From: Maryann Hondo <mhondo@us.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2006 09:47:43 -0600
To: <public-ws-policy@w3.org>
Message-ID: <OF0138C729.61BA6774-ON872571C6.0052FA66-852571C6.0056AF7C@us.ibm.com>
The action item [recorded in 
http://www.w3.org/2006/07/13-ws-policy-minutes.html#action24])
 is not clearly specified as to the problem with the text so here's my 
best attempt at identifying the offending text  and providing a 
clarification.

Here is paragraph 3 & 4:
It is RECOMMENDED that, where specific policy assertions associated with 
one policy subject are only compatible with specific policy assertions on 
another policy subject in the same hierarchical chain, the policies 
containing these assertions should be attached within a single WSDL 
binding hierarchy.

For any given port, the policy alternatives for each policy subject type 
SHOULD be compatible with each of the policy alternatives at each of the 
policy subjects parent and child policy subjects, such that choices 
between policy alternatives at each level are independent of each other.


Here is my proposed additonal  text to go before ( or possibly instead of 
paragraph 3) . 

It is RECOMMENDED that when policy domain authors define sets of policy 
assertions that could be applied to various levels of a WSDL hierarchy, 
they also describe any relationships or restrictions that exist between 
the policy assertions and the policy subjects in the same hierarchical 
chain, so that the policy alternatives can be determined appropriately. An 
example of this can be seen in the WS-SecurityPolicy Appendix A and 
guidelines for policy domain authors are provided in the Primer.
Received on Thursday, 10 August 2006 15:57:52 UTC

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