RE: Features at Risk: Attaching Policies Using UDDI

I'm writing to express concern over Section 6 [1] being put at risk. I know of multiple implementations of Section 6 [1] for which I count at least 8 companies that provide product support and for which interop has been demonstrated. Section 6 [1] is a key enabler of a number of integration and interop scenarios relating to the expression and discovery of constraints and capabilities associated with a service and its endpoint(s).  

If it's a matter of participating in an interop session, I see no reason why we can't get a number of interested parties involved. 

Why is W3C putting [1] in question?

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-ws-policy-attach-20061117/#AttachingPoliciesUsingUDDI

Luc Clément | Director, Product Management | hp | 
Co-Chair, OASIS UDDI Technical Committee
One van de Graaff Drive Burlington, MA 01803
Phone +1 781.362.1330 | Mobile +1 978.793.2162 | 

-----Original Message-----
From: public-ws-policy-request@w3.org [mailto:public-ws-policy-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Paul Denning
Sent: 09 February, 2007 17:45
To: Snow, Skip [CCC-OT_IT]; public-ws-policy@w3.org
Subject: RE: Features at Risk: Attaching Policies Using UDDI


I would be opposed to keeping the "c) Attaching Policies Using UDDI" at risk.

To address the concern that "thus far, there aren't any publicly 
visible implementations," I would point out that most deployments of 
UDDI are private and not publicly available.

Most UDDI implementations provide a browser-based interface to CRUD 
UDDI entries.  Such an interface is sufficient to manually add the 
UDDI entries or tModels that reference policies in accordance with 
WS-PolicyAttachment.  So, you may find entries in private UDDI 
registries that refer to policies in accordance with 
WS-PolicyAttachment.  I have added the three category tModels defined 
in Appendix B to a UDDI server that is within MITRE, so these 
"taxonomies" are available to use.

I can see there being an issue with "merging" into an "effective 
policy", but the ability to reference policies from UDDI in a 
standard way is of value.

Paul


At 05:37 PM 2007-02-07, Snow, Skip [CCC-OT_IT] wrote:

>Members:
>
>In a separate set of threads I have brought to the attention of the
>chairs at least two additional product implementations that are live
>today with support for the feature under debate. I have introduced the
>chairs to representatives from both firms witch have allowed me to do
>so.
>
>While Citigroup is not and can not, be in the business of presenting
>technology vendors to public forums like this, we are confident that the
>chairs will follow up with these vendors.
>
>We trust that the public implantations of these features, which we have
>brought to the chair's attention, and our own concern with these
>important matters will help put this matter into its proper perspective.
>
>If not we are ready to help in any way resolve this issue.
>
>Thank you.
>
>Skip Snow
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Snow, Skip [CCC-OT_IT] [mailto:skip.snow@citigroup.com]
>Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2007 8:36 AM
>To: Prasad Yendluri; Asir Vedamuthu; public-ws-policy@w3.org
>Cc: Rajesh Koilpillai
>Subject: RE: Features at Risk
>
>Prasad:
>
>Thank you for this notice.
>
>It is important to insure that policies and their attachments are
>discoverable in a standards based way.
>
>It is not sufficient that various meta data resource transfer mechanisms
>be available if an actor happens to know the bindings to the actors that
>contain information about policies and their attachments are.
>
>It is required that a registry, using a standards based registry
>protocol be available for this purpose. The charter stipulates that this
>registry be UDDI. We are satisfied with the charter's stipulation. We
>would be dismayed if this stipulation was not met.
>
>Skip Snow
>Citigroup.
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Prasad Yendluri [mailto:prasad.yendluri@webmethods.com]
>Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2007 11:29 AM
>To: Asir Vedamuthu; public-ws-policy@w3.org
>Cc: Rajesh Koilpillai; Snow, Skip [CCC-OT_IT]
>Subject: RE: Features at Risk
>
>Hi,
>
> > c) Attaching Policies Using UDDI
>
>webMethods expects to have a UDDI server implementation that supports
>attaching policy to UDDI entities as defined in the specification.
>We would be opposed to marking this as a feature at risk.
>
>I have copied Skip Snow from Citigroup, that has shown an interest in
>this space.
>
>Regards,
>Prasad
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: public-ws-policy-request@w3.org
>[mailto:public-ws-policy-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Asir Vedamuthu
>Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2007 8:18 AM
>To: public-ws-policy@w3.org
>Subject: Features at Risk
>
>
>To advance WS-Policy to Proposed Recommendation, the Working Group needs
>to show that each feature in the Framework and Attachment drafts has
>been implemented. Thus far, there aren't any publicly visible
>implementations for the following features:
>
>a) Ignorable Policy Assertions
>b) External Policy Attachment
>c) Attaching Policies Using UDDI
>
>For a successful Candidate Recommendation phase, we request the WG to
>consider marking features a)-c) as being at risk (the history is that
>most of the features marked as being at risk were implemented by
>multiple vendors).
>
>Also, in Nov, W3C requested the Working Group to consider marking
>feature a) as being at risk [1].
>
>[1]
>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2006Nov/0077.html
>
>Regards,
>
>Asir S Vedamuthu
>Microsoft Corporation

Received on Monday, 12 February 2007 05:02:12 UTC