RE: RE: New issue on duplicate assertions of a single type in an alternative: 4583

Asir:

We are talking about assertions that have matched during policy intersection.  Thus, their nested policies are identical.

The only issue is parameters.

 

So, how about:

"If authors do not specify the semantics of multiple assertions of the same assertion type that do not allow parameters, then repetition is simply redundancy and multiple assertions of the assertion type within the policy alternative have the same meaning as a single assertion of the type."

 

All the best, Ashok 

________________________________

From: public-ws-policy-request@w3.org [mailto:public-ws-policy-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Asir Vedamuthu
Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2007 7:36 PM
To: Dale Moberg; Ashok Malhotra; Paul Cotton
Cc: public-ws-policy@w3.org
Subject: RE: RE: New issue on duplicate assertions of a single type in an alternative: 4583

 

It appears that Dale's proposed text addresses the simple case - an assertion type that neither allows parameters nor allows a nested policy expression. If the WG were to adopt the proposal we would suggest rephrasing the sentence using terminology defined in the Framework draft:

 

"If authors did not specify the semantics of multiple assertions of the same assertion type that neither allows parameters nor allows a nested policy expression within a policy alternative, then multiple assertions of the assertion type within the policy alternative have the same meaning as a single assertion of the type within the policy alternative."

 

Regards,

 

Asir S Vedamuthu

Microsoft Corporation

 

 

 

From: public-ws-policy-request@w3.org [mailto:public-ws-policy-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Dale Moberg
Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2007 3:38 PM
To: Ashok Malhotra; Paul Cotton
Cc: public-ws-policy@w3.org
Subject: RE: New issue on duplicate assertions of a single type in an alternative: 4583

 

A modest proposal that does not impact the current policy intersection procedure (I hope)

 

 Was:

 

Section 3.2: A policy alternative MAY contain multiple assertions of the same type. Mechanisms for determining the aggregate behavior indicated by the assertions (and their Post-Schema-Validation Infoset (PSVI) (See XML Schema Part 1 [XML Schema Structures]) content, if any) are specific to the assertion type and are outside the scope of this document.

Suggested: 

Section 3.2: A policy alternative MAY contain multiple assertions of the same type. Mechanisms for determining the aggregate behavior indicated by the assertions (and their Post-Schema-Validation Infoset (PSVI) (See XML Schema Part 1 [XML Schema Structures]) content, if any) are specific to the assertion type and are outside the scope of this document. If domain policy assertion language authors fail to specify what repetition of a policy assertion type (without parameters or subpolicies!) within a policy alternative means, then repetition is simply redundancy, and multiple assertions of a policy type have the same meaning as a single assertion of the type within the policy alternative.

 

An advantage is that the guidelines can present simplified burdens on domain policy assertion language authors; the instruction can be to specify what repetition of a policy assertion of a type means only when repetition does _not_ have the same meaning as a single assertion of the type within the policy alternative.

 

________________________________

From: public-ws-policy-request@w3.org [mailto:public-ws-policy-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Ashok Malhotra
Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2007 2:38 PM
To: Paul Cotton
Cc: public-ws-policy@w3.org
Subject: RE: New issue on duplicate assertions of a single type in an alternative: 4583

 

I looked at the Policy assertions defined by WS-SX, WS-TX and WS-Addressing.  None of these assertions have parameters.

I also looked at WS-SecurityPolicy.  Parameters do appear in some of these assertions but, as yesterday's discussion on issue i134 indicates, these are considered "additional information" and not considered part of the semantics of the assertion.   Thus, matching assertions with different values of these parameters is ok.  AFAIK, these parameters seem to be in the nature of comments.

 

The word on the street is that parameters should not be used to convey useful information in an assertion because of the WS-Policy intersection algorithm which ignores parameters.   

 

If parameters are not used in assertions then the duplicate assertions in the intersected policy are identical and can be removed.

All the best, Ashok 

________________________________

From: public-ws-policy-request@w3.org [mailto:public-ws-policy-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Paul Cotton
Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2007 1:52 PM
To: Ashok Malhotra
Cc: public-ws-policy@w3.org
Subject: RE: New issue on duplicate assertions of a single type in an alternative: 4583

 

>The framework document indicates that duplicate instances of an assertion type are allowed in a policy alternative. 

 

You are correct.  This is covered by the following two pieces of text in the CR Framework document [1]:

 

Section 3.2: A policy alternative MAY contain multiple assertions of the same type. Mechanisms for determining the aggregate behavior indicated by the assertions (and their Post-Schema-Validation Infoset (PSVI) (See XML Schema Part 1 [XML Schema Structures]) content, if any) are specific to the assertion type and are outside the scope of this document.

Section 4.5: See Section 3.2 Policy Alternative for mechanisms for determining the aggregate behavior indicated by multiple assertions of the same policy assertion type.

In fact the Section 3.2 text was in the member submission version of WS-Policy [2].

>1. Should duplicate instances of the same type be allowed in a policy alternative before and after intersection.

Yes.  In fact if we want to carry out our Charter which indicates we should be as backwards as compatible as possible [3], then I think we need a very strong reason to change this text.

>2. Do we need to add guidance re. removing duplicate assertions from an alternative.

Personally, I think the Section 3.2 text covers what the Framework needs to say about duplicate assertions.

>2. What is the default semantic re. the resulting behavior if there is more than one instance of an assertion in an alternative.

Section 3.2 says that the semantics for duplicate assertions are covered by domain specific semantics.  

For example, during the WG F2F meeting you asked what a WS-SecurityPolicy implementer should do if they encountered duplicate EncryptedPart assertions in a policy.  I believe this is handled by the following text in SecurityPolicy just as suggested in the Ws-Policy Framework text [4]:

There MAY be multiple EncryptedParts assertions present. Multiple EncryptedParts assertions present within a policy alternative are equivalent to a single EncryptedParts assertion containing the union of all specified message parts. Note that this assertion does not require that a given part appear in a message, just that if such a part appears, it requires confidentiality protection.

I hope this helps.

 

/paulc

 

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/CR-ws-policy-20070330/ 

[2] http://www.w3.org/Submission/WS-Policy/#Policy_Alternative

[3] http://www.w3.org/2006/04/ws-policy-charter.html 

[4] http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ws-sx/download.php/23821/ws-securitypolicy-1.2-spec-cs.pdf

Paul Cotton, Microsoft Canada
17 Eleanor Drive, Ottawa, Ontario K2E 6A3
Tel: (613) 225-5445 Fax: (425) 936-7329
mailto:Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com <mailto:Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com> 

________________________________

From: public-ws-policy-request@w3.org [mailto:public-ws-policy-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Ashok Malhotra
Sent: May 24, 2007 3:01 PM
To: public-ws-policy@w3.org
Subject: New issue on duplicate assertions of a single type in an alternative: 4583

 

The framework document indicates that duplicate instances of an assertion type are allowed in a policy alternative.  During yesterday's and today's discussion a number of questions arose about this situation.

1. Should duplicate instances of the same type be allowed in a policy alternative before and after intersection.

2. Do we need to add guidance re. removing duplicate assertions from an alternative.

2. What is the default semantic re. the resulting behavior if there is more than one instance of an assertion in an alternative.

All the best, Ashok