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

Re: New Issue 3793: Add example about policies in the context of relationships between multiple entities

From: Anthony Nadalin <drsecure@us.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2006 08:44:07 -0500
To: "Sverdlov, Yakov" <Yakov.Sverdlov@ca.com>
Cc: public-ws-policy@w3.org, public-ws-policy-request@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF68C2E448.38B57578-ON862571FD.004B4CAA-862571FD.004B7378@us.ibm.com>

So I have a better idea (or at least a different idea), we (the WSSX TC)
have now a draft of a scenarios document that describes our interop
scenarios and this is now annotated with WS-SecurityPolicy assertions, I
suggest that we take those scenarios.

Anthony Nadalin | Work 512.838.0085 | Cell 512.289.4122

             "Sverdlov, Yakov"                                             
             a.com>                                                     To 
             Sent by:                  <public-ws-policy@w3.org>           
             public-ws-policy-                                          cc 
                                       New Issue 3793: Add example about   
             10/04/2006 08:27          policies in the context of          
             AM                        relationships between multiple      

I wanted to send this proposal before the today’s optionality tar ball so
as to provide additional context. The purpose of the proposal is to add an
example in the Primer (probably in the section 2.5 Combining Policy
Assertions or 3.3 Policy Data Model) about dealing with requirements and
capabilities of entities as [optional] behaviors in the most basic use case
for requester and provider. I am suggesting the outline of the use case. I
can come up with the actual text if the WG will agree with the approach.

The example may describe policy design for the WS-Security token
authentication scheme when only two entities – requester and provider – are
involved. The following four policy assertions with respect to the
corresponding entities may be considered:
1. “The provider only accepts WS-Security tokens as means of the
2. “The provider may accept WS-Security tokens as means of the
authentication” (optional="true")
3. “The requester must attach the WS-Security token to a message”
4. “The requester may attach the WS-Security token to a message”

I think that briefly describing some combinations of one or more assertions
above will provide policy designers with a good understanding of policy
assertion choices and possible policy enforcement implications. The example
would also show that typically any policy assertion should deal with one
entity at a time, and that combinations of assertions (behaviors) would
allow the designers to cover relationships/dependencies between entities.


Yakov Sverdlov

(image/gif attachment: graycol.gif)

(image/gif attachment: pic24195.gif)

(image/gif attachment: ecblank.gif)

Received on Wednesday, 4 October 2006 13:49:52 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:33:16 UTC