RE: NEW ISSUE: [Guidelines] Clarify if Section 7 on defining new policy attachment mechanisms is necessary

Hi Maryann,

The first sentence in Section 7.1 reads: "Policy attachment should not affect the interpretation of Policy alternatives."  This sentence doesn't appear to be addressed to assertion authors.  Moving Section 7.1 does not address the fact that it sounds like guidance for policy attachment mechanism authors, not assertion authors.  Perhaps the text should say: "The interpretation of a policy assertion should not be affected by the attachment mechanism used"?

We think you are saying that section 7.3 is about the lifecycle of policies.  We don't see how this is relevant to policy assertion authors, so the Guidance doc probably isn't the right place for this information.  Also, we don't think the lifecycle of a policy is addressed anywhere in the framework or attachment specs, so we are hesitant to make any guidance recommendations on this topic.

For Section 7.2, the proposed wording assumes that assertion authors will frequently define new policy subjects and attachment mechanisms for those subjects.  We think it might be better to provide guidance that assertion authors should use existing policy subjects whenever possible.

Daniel Roth


________________________________
From: Maryann Hondo [mailto:mhondo@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2006 6:08 AM
To: Daniel Roth
Cc: public-ws-policy@w3.org; public-ws-policy-request@w3.org
Subject: Re: NEW ISSUE: [Guidelines] Clarify if Section 7 on defining new policy attachment mechanisms is necessary


Dan,
I'd like you to consider an alternative proposal:

rename Section 7-
Section 7: General guidelines for policy authors extending Policy Attachment subjects

Section 7.1 should really be part of the "considerations when modelling new assertions  [section 4.3]" since I believe the intent of this entire section was to summarize the "best practices" which are now (as a result of action item to the editors #77 and bug 3792) included as a line in each section as opposed to summarized at the end.

Section 7.3 might be more appropriately covered in the lifecycle section, as I believe the intent is to say that assertions attached to a policy subject may be transient or persistent.  A provider may change the policies on a wsdl and a consumer that has a previous wsdl for the endpoint with embedded policies may find that a message sent that conforms to that wsdl they have (perhaps cached) is no longer valid and that they may need to get another wsdl with the updated policies in order to be able to exchange messages with the provider.

Section 7.2 should be reworded to say
If assertion authors chose to extend the policy subjects following the extensibility guidelines of the WS-PolicyAttachment specification, any new policy subjects
Each policy attachment mechanism should unambiguously identify the subject of the attached assertions. It should be understood that extensions outside the set defined in the specification may not be recognized. Generally, For example, targetting this should be a specific SOAP node or a specific message between two SOAP nodes. Some There is currently no attachment mechanisms that may encompass multiple nodes or messages, for example, "the message along its entire path".


Maryann


Daniel Roth <Daniel.Roth@microsoft.com>
Sent by: public-ws-policy-request@w3.org

11/17/2006 08:30 PM

To

"public-ws-policy@w3.org" <public-ws-policy@w3.org>

cc



Subject

NEW ISSUE: [Guidelines] Clarify if Section 7 on defining new policy  attachment mechanisms is necessary










http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=3978

Title: [Guidelines] Clarify if Section 7 on defining new policy attachment mechanisms is necessary

Description: Section 7 in the Guidelines document currently discusses guidelines for authoring new policy attachment mechanisms [1].  These guidelines are not relevant to policy assertion authors.  Does the working group plan on providing guidance on creating new policy attachment mechanisms?  If no, then this section should be removed.  If yes, then this section needs to be reviewed for completeness.

Justification: The Guidelines doc is specific to policy assertion authors.  Providing guidance on creating new attachment mechanisms seems like a lower priority.

Target: Guidelines for Policy Assertion Authors

Proposal: Remove Section 7.

[1] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2006/ws/policy/ws-policy-guidelines.html?rev=1.8&content-type=text/html;%20charset=utf-8#best-practices-attachment