RE: Issue 4128 -- Action Item Dan Roth, Ashok Malhotra

Thanks, Ashok.

Cheers,

Christopher Ferris
STSM, Software Group Standards Strategy
email: chrisfer@us.ibm.com
blog: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/page/chrisferris
phone: +1 508 377 9295

public-ws-policy-request@w3.org wrote on 01/04/2007 01:25:14 PM:

> 
> We agreed on yesterday's call that we should add references to WSDL 
> 1.1 element identifier syntax and WSDL 2.0 component identifier 
> syntax where these terms first occur in Section 3.4.
> 
> We left a part of this issue open.  This was in the nature of due 
> diligence to ensure that earlier comments that Dan had made on the 
> specification of policy scopes and the calculation of effective 
> policy were not ignored.  Dan and I were given an action item to 
> look into this.
> 
> Dan and I exchanged mail and Dan confirmed that no change in wording
> was needed.  Here are some excerpts from his mail:
> 
> RE:  Policy Scopes
> 
> "The URI Domain Expression section of the Attachment spec defines an
> element that contains "an absolute IRI that references a resource as
> a policy subject" [1].  This means that the URI Domain expression 
> delegates the definition of the specified policy subject to the 
> specified IRI.  IRIs defined to be used with the URI Domain 
> Expression need to be clear about what policy subject they refer to.
> The existing text in the Attachment spec this is sufficient to 
> address my comment.  I don't see any need for adding additional text
> to the Attachment spec."
> 
> RE:  Calculating Effective Policy
> 
> "The section on Effective Policy is written in general terms: policy
> scopes and policy subjects.  Basically, it says that you should 
> merge two policies if they are attached to policy scopes that 
> contain the same policy subject.  If the domain expression used in 
> an external policy attachment clearly defines its policy subjects as
> it should, then the section on effective policy tells you everything
> you need to know."
> 
> Thus, once the references are added, this issue can be closed.
> 
> All the best, Ashok
> 
>