RE: Issue 3557 (was ACTION 53

Hi Umit,

Thank you for continuing the conversation. Yesterday, Ashok posted a new
proposal [1] to resolve 3557. I think the best way to move forward on
this issue is to review the new proposal. I'll do that very soon.

[1]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2006Aug/0164.html 

Regards,
 
Asir S Vedamuthu
Microsoft Corporation

-----Original Message-----
From: Yalcinalp, Umit [mailto:umit.yalcinalp@sap.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2006 3:50 PM
To: Asir Vedamuthu; Ashok Malhotra
Cc: public-ws-policy@w3.org
Subject: RE: Issue 3557 (was ACTION 53

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Asir Vedamuthu [mailto:asirveda@microsoft.com] 
> Sent: Tuesday, Aug 29, 2006 7:33 PM
> To: Ashok Malhotra
> Cc: Yalcinalp, Umit; public-ws-policy@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Issue 3557 (was ACTION 53
> 
> Hi Ashok,
> 
> The following is your proposal in issue 3557:
> 
> "The external Policy Attachment mechanism uses a PolicyAttachment
> element to associate a Policy with a Policy Subject.  URI 
> References to
> policy subjects may include WSDL component references, (see 
> Appendix to
> the WSDL 2.0 spec for URI structures to refer to WSFL 2.0 contsructs),
> endpoint references and other domain specific configurations and
> protocol constructs, such as URIs used to designate JMS queues.
> This needs to be clarified in the PolicyAttachment document." -
> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=3557#c1 
> 
> 
> I looked through your examples at [1].  All the examples are URI
> references. That is, a URI reference is used to designate a construct.
> Section 3.4 says that domain expressions are XML elements and not URI
> References ('Domain expressions are XML elements that describe policy
> subjects within a policy scope' [2] and '<x:DomainExpression/> +').
> Perhaps, you weren't aware of it or were thinking of using a 
> wrapper XML
> element to capture a URI reference (or some other mechanism).

You are right to indicate that the current xsd indicates that the
content of the wsp:AppliesTo is xs:any, but I am not following why you
are bringing this up. 

The specification currently written as in second paragraph of the
Attachment document also acknowledges the utility of IRIs. Just to
quote:

{This element has three components: the policy scope of the attachment,
the policy expressions being bound, and optional security information.
The policy scope of the attachment is defined using one or more
extensible domain expressions that identify policy subjects, typically
using IRIs.
}

The keyword is "using". As you indicate, one would need a wrapper
element in order to include an IRI, but this does not prevent using
IRIs. 

The proposed example text for "using" IRIs are not inconsistent with the
current editor's draft. 



> 
> Is a JMS queue URI reference [3] a Web Service Policy 
> Subject? What are
> the policy subjects and policy scopes for WSDL component 
> references (or
> fragment identifiers)? How would requestors compute effective policies
> for each of these policy subjects?
> 

Just to comment on WSDL, the policy subjects and policy scopes that
apply to WSDL references would exactly those that are currently
specified in Section 4 of the specification. Nothing new is invented
here. You can think of it as alternative syntax that conforms to the
same attachment points only expressed via a referencing mechanism
instead. 

HTH,

--umit



> 
> [1]
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2006Jul/0
> 019.html 
> [2]
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-ws-policy-attach-20060731/#Extern
> alPolicyAt
> tachment
> [3] Example from Ashok - jms://example.com:7115/quoteQCF/LoanFlowQueue
>  
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2006Jul/0
> 019.html 
> 
> Regards,
>  
> Asir S Vedamuthu
> Microsoft Corporation
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ashok Malhotra [mailto:ashok.malhotra@oracle.com] 
> Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2006 3:21 PM
> To: Asir Vedamuthu; Yalcinalp, Umit; public-ws-policy@w3.org
> Subject: RE: ACTION 53
> 
> Look at bugs 3557 and 3599 in bugzilla.
> 
> All the best, Ashok
>  
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Asir Vedamuthu [mailto:asirveda@microsoft.com] 
> > Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2006 3:06 PM
> > To: Yalcinalp, Umit; Ashok Malhotra; public-ws-policy@w3.org
> > Subject: RE: ACTION 53
> > 
> > > Please see the proposed text.
> > 
> > Where is the proposed text? (I'll appreciate if you could 
> > send it to the mailing list). What is the proposed location 
> > for the proposed text?
> > 
> > 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 
> Yalcinalp, Umit
> > Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2006 1:58 PM
> > To: Ashok Malhotra; public-ws-policy@w3.org
> > Subject: RE: ACTION 53
> > 
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: public-ws-policy-request@w3.org 
> > > [mailto:public-ws-policy-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of 
> Ashok Malhotra
> > > Sent: Tuesday, Aug 15, 2006 6:20 AM
> > > To: public-ws-policy@w3.org
> > > Subject: ACTION 53
> > > 
> > > 
> > > In response to ACTION 53 I have added a comment to Bug 3557 and 
> > > created a new bug 3599.
> > > 
> > > All the best, Ashok
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > 
> > Just to add Ashok's note, we have discussed and decided to 
> > address two separate issues with respect to bug 3557 that 
> > results in this partitioning. This partitioning completes our 
> > action item [Action53]. 
> > 
> > (a) We propose to add the text in Ashok's text added in Bug 
> > 3557 to illustrate examples of external references to policy 
> > subjects [3557].
> > Please see the proposed text. 
> >   
> > (b) We proposed a new bug to address the usage of URIs to 
> > WSDL 1.1 components in this context. [3599] 
> > 
> > Regards, 
> > 
> > --umit
> > 
> > [Action53] http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/wspolicy/actions/53
> > [3599] http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=3599
> > [3557] http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=3557
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
>

Received on Friday, 1 September 2006 03:27:31 UTC