RE: Revised proposal for Bug 3730

Dan:
You said ...
> ... but it doesn't say what the implied Policy 
> Scopes and Policy Subjects are.  I'm guessing they should be 
> the same as the Policy Scopes and Subjects already defined 
> for WSDL 2.0 attachment.

This is a good point.  If I look at the latest Policy Attachment spec it has
a long section on WSDL 2.0 attachment with an extensive discussion of Policy
Subjects and Scopes and merging.  I don't think we want to repeat this material
for the external attachment section.  So, how about we add a paragraph that
says something like:

The semantics of associating policies with WSDL 2.0 components using the external
attachment mechanism are exactly the same as if the policies had been attached directly
to WSDL 2.0 components using the mechanisms described in section 5. The possible 
policy scopes are exactly those allowed in section 5.2 and the calculation of effective policies is done in exactly the same manner as described in section 5.4. 

All the best, Ashok
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Daniel Roth [mailto:Daniel.Roth@microsoft.com] 
> Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2006 8:59 AM
> To: Ashok Malhotra; public-ws-policy@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Revised proposal for Bug 3730
> 
> Hi Ashok,
> 
> Thanks for sending out a new proposal.  I see that you added 
> a wrapper element, which is great.
> 
> The policy attachment spec uses the terms Policy Scope and 
> Policy Subject when defining attachment mechanisms.  You 
> attach policies to Policy Scopes which associates the 
> attached policy with all Policy Subjects within that Policy 
> Scope.  This language is also used to describe how policies 
> are merged when multiple policies are attached to different 
> scopes containing the same Policy Subject.  This proposal 
> describes how to use a WSDL 2.0 component reference as a 
> domain expression, but it doesn't say what the implied Policy 
> Scopes and Policy Subjects are.  I'm guessing they should be 
> the same as the Policy Scopes and Subjects already defined 
> for WSDL 2.0 attachment.
> 
> Also the current proposal doesn't use any RFC language, and 
> it probably needs to if you want the proposal simply copied 
> into the attachment spec.  This could just be an action item 
> for the editors.
> 
> Daniel Roth
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-ws-policy-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:public-ws-policy-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Ashok Malhotra
> Sent: Friday, October 06, 2006 2:15 PM
> To: public-ws-policy@w3.org
> Subject: Revised proposal for Bug 3730
> 
> 
> As requested, I have defined an element wrapper for the URI 
> Reference that indicated the WSDL 2.0 component.
> 
> All the best, Ashok
> 
>

Received on Tuesday, 17 October 2006 22:29:50 UTC