RE: Revised proposal for Bug 3730

Thank you Ashok. There are three other bits on 3730 and 3599:

(a) Two distinct wrapper elements for WSDL 11 and 20 sound good.

(b) These two wrapper elements (WSDL 11 and 20) are domain expressions.
Just like other domain related work (security, reliability, transaction,
etc.), these domain expressions can be in their own namespace names (for
instance http://www.w3.org/2006/07/ws-policy/wsdl20). By minting new
namespace names for domain expressions, WG can showcase this
extensibility point.

(c) Just like the policy language and assertions, the external
attachment mechanism and domain expressions evolve independently. There
is a clean separation between the external attachment mechanism and
domain expression. To promote these, we suggest documenting these domain
expressions in a separate document (for instance 'Web Services Policy -
Domain Expressions').
 
Regards,
 
Asir S Vedamuthu
Microsoft Corporation


-----Original Message-----
From: public-ws-policy-request@w3.org
[mailto:public-ws-policy-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Ashok Malhotra
Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 3:28 PM
To: Daniel Roth; public-ws-policy@w3.org
Subject: 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 Wednesday, 18 October 2006 15:28:48 UTC