RE: RE: Features at Risk: Attaching Policies Using UDDI

>Why is W3C putting [1] in question?



The W3C Process permits a WG to define features "at risk" [1]:

In the Call for Implementations, the Working Group MAY identify specific features of the technical report as being "features at risk." General statements such as "We plan to remove any unimplemented feature" are not acceptable; the Working Group MUST precisely identify any features at risk. Thus, in response to a Call for Implementations, reviewers can indicate whether they would register a Formal Objection<http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/policies.html#FormalObjection> to the decision to remove the identified features.

As far as the WG knows their have been no public interop events to demonstrate the interoperability of this feature.  And there have certainly been no events that would test the W3C WS-Policy 1.5 CR description of this feature.



The WG is discussing this matter and some WG members want to be conservative in our exit criteria.  It is important to note that if we are forced to remove a feature due to lack of interoperability proof and it is not declared 'at risk' when we enter CR stage then the resulting specification (without the feature) COULD NOT advance directly to PR (e.g. we would have to go back to Working Draft status).



/paulc



Paul Cotton, Microsoft Canada

17 Eleanor Drive, Ottawa, Ontario K2E 6A3

Tel: (613) 225-5445 Fax: (425) 936-7329

mailto:Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com











> -----Original Message-----

> From: public-ws-policy-request@w3.org [mailto:public-ws-policy-

> request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Clement, Luc

> Sent: February 11, 2007 7:23 PM

> To: public-ws-policy@w3.org

> Subject: 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

>

>

>

>