RE: NEW ISSUE (4074): [Guidelines] Collection of unclear Guidance or text issues

You are correct. I listed the reference number you listed. Too many
numbers, too little time :-)
 
--umit
 


________________________________

	From: Daniel Roth [mailto:Daniel.Roth@microsoft.com] 
	Sent: Wednesday, Dec 20, 2006 3:16 PM
	To: Yalcinalp, Umit; public-ws-policy@w3.org
	Subject: RE: NEW ISSUE (4074): [Guidelines] Collection of
unclear Guidance or text issues
	
	

	I believe you are referring to part #5 in my issue, correct?  I
agree that part #5 in issue 4074 is the same as issue 3953 and I agree
to drop it.

	 

	Daniel Roth

	 

	
________________________________


	From: Yalcinalp, Umit [mailto:umit.yalcinalp@sap.com] 
	Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2006 3:03 PM
	To: Daniel Roth; public-ws-policy@w3.org
	Subject: RE: NEW ISSUE (4074): [Guidelines] Collection of
unclear Guidance or text issues

	 

	Dan, 

	 

	We just dealt with the issue (4) in today's telcon. This is
exactly what 3953 is about and this is what Frederick/I were trying to
do today and we appear to be converging on the text with Action 163. 

	 

	Lets not reraise issues that we have already covered and are in
the process of addressing already. So, please remove this item from your
list. It is a dup. 

	 

	Thanks. 

	 

	--umit

	 

	 

	 

		 

		
________________________________


		From: public-ws-policy-request@w3.org
[mailto:public-ws-policy-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Daniel Roth
		Sent: Tuesday, Dec 12, 2006 2:38 PM
		To: public-ws-policy@w3.org
		Subject: NEW ISSUE (4074): [Guidelines] Collection of
unclear Guidance or text issues

		See http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=4074

		 

		Title: [Guidelines] Collection of unclear Guidance or
text issues

		 

		Description:

		 

		1.) Section 3.1.1 states:  "The WS-Policy Framework is
based on a declarative model, meaning that it is incumbent on the
WS-Policy authors to define both the semantics of the assertions as well
as the scope of their target domain in their specification. The set of
metadata for any particular domain will vary in the granularity of
assertion specification required." [1]

		 

		It is not clear what it means to define the "scope of
their target domain."

		 

		2.) Section 3.1.1 later quotes an unknown section from
WS-SecurityPolicy (needs a reference) and prefaces the quote with: "An
example of a domain specification that follows these practices is the
WS-SecurityPolicy specification [WS-SecurityPolicy]. The
WS-SecurityPolicy authors have defined their scope as follows:"  

		 

		It is not clear what practice the quote is trying to
demonstrate, though I think the is referring to an assertion author
defining the "scope of their target domain"

		 

		3.) Section 4.4.2, 1st paragraph states: "The
granularity of assertions is determined by the authors and it is
recommended that care be taken when defining nested policies to ensure
that the options provided appropriately specify policy alternatives
within a specific behavior." [2]

		 

		It is not clear what it means to "define nested policies
to ensure that the options provided appropriately specify policy
alternatives within a specific behavior."

		 

		4.)  Section 4.7 states: "The current set of subjects as
mapped to the WSDL 1.1 elements, can also constrain the assertion
constructs. For Example, In WS-RM, the domain authors chose to support
certain capabilities at the endpoint level. This resulted in the finer
granularity of the assertion to apply at the message policy subject, but
the assertion semantics also indicates that the if the senders choose to
engage RM semantics (although not specified via attachment in WSDL at
incoming messages), the providers will honor the engagement of RM. This
is illustrative of how the assertion author can specify additional
constraints and assumptions for attachment and engagement of behavior."
[3]

		 

		It is not clear how "the current set of subjects as
mapped to the WSDL 1.1 elements, can also constrain the assertion."
It's not clear how supporting RM policy at the endpoint "resulted in the
finer granularity of the assertion to apply at the message policy
subject."  It is not clear what "constraints and assumptions for
attachment and engagement of behavior" an assertion author should
specify.

		 

		5.) Section 6 states: "domain authors should be aware of
the compositional semantics with other related domains. The protocol
assertions that require composition with WS-Security should be
particularly aware of the nesting requirements on top of transport level
security."  [4]

		 

		It is not clear what Section 6 is recommending that
policy assertion authors do.

		 

		Justification: The text in these sections does not
provide clear guidance, which could result in confusion and
misinterpretation.

		 

		Target: Guidelines for Policy Assertion Authors

		 

		Proposal: 

		 

		1,2.) Replace "The WS-SecurityPolicy authors have
defined their scope as follows:" with "The WS-SecurityPolicy authors
have defined the scope of their target domain (security) as follows:"

		 

		3.) Remove or clarify the sentence

		 

		4.) Remove the section 

		 

		5.) Remove or clarify the section.

		 

		[1]
http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2006/ws/policy/ws-policy-guidelines.
html?rev=1.11&content-type=text/html;%20charset=utf-8#domain-owners  

		[2]
http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2006/ws/policy/ws-policy-guidelines.
html?rev=1.11&content-type=text/html;%20charset=utf-8#nested-assertions


		[3]
http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2006/ws/policy/ws-policy-guidelines.
html?rev=1.11&content-type=text/html;%20charset=utf-8#levels-of-abstract
ion  

		[4]
http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2006/ws/policy/ws-policy-guidelines.
html?rev=1.11&content-type=text/html;%20charset=utf-8#inter-policy