- From: Monica J. Martin <Monica.Martin@Sun.COM>
- Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 22:47:45 -0700
- To: Maryann Hondo <mhondo@us.ibm.com>
- Cc: "public-ws-policy@w3.org" <public-ws-policy@w3.org>
- Message-id: <4678BF81.6050004@sun.com>
Further comments on these changes. Thanks to MaryAnn for the substantive work. * Comment: Four editorial nits exist in attached files (.doc and .pdf). * Comment: In Section 5.3.4, consider reiterating reuse: o Change from: "New Assertion Authors should focus on creating assertions for those specific constraints and capabilities that do not overlap with other domains but that communicate new functionality." o Change to: "New Assertion Authors should focus on creating assertions for those specific constraints and capabilities that do not overlap with other domains but that communicate new functionality, and to reuse existing policy assertions where possible." * Comment: Specify this important information earlier in Section 5.4 rather than waiting until after Best Practice 12; suggested location for specifying this is at the end of first paragraph in Section 5.4. Keep similar information later after Best Practice 12. o "It is important to note that the main consideration for selecting parameters or nesting of assertions is that the framework intersection algorithm processes nested alternatives, but does not consider parameters in its algorithm." * Comment: In Section 5.4.1, make clear than an assertion parameter is additional qualifying information. o Change from: "An assertion author should represent useful (or additional) information necessary for engaging the behavior represented by a policy assertion as assertion parameters." o Change to: "An assertion author should represent useful additive information necessary for engaging the behavior represented by a policy assertion as assertion parameters." * Comment: For text to be retained after Best Practice 12: o Change from: "The main consideration for selecting parameters or nesting of assertions is that the framework intersection algorithm processes nested alternatives, but does not consider parameters in its algorithm." o Change to: "As previously indicated, nested policy assertions in policy alternatives are processed by the framework intersection algorithm while assertion parameters are not." * Comment: In Section 5.6.1, since the use of wsp:Optional is not directional, revise slightly. Reason: Both may specify policies. This proposed change is consistent with succeeding text early in Section 5.6.2. o Change from: "The provider may influence what is possible by choosing whether or not to include policy alternatives in a policy expression, by using the wsp:Optional attribute. o Change to: "The consumer or provider may influence what is possible by choosing whether or not to include policy alternatives in a policy expression, by using the wsp:Optional attribute. " * Comment: Update text Best Practice 11 and the succeeding text to be consistent with recent Framework changes in Section 3.1. See: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=4579. o Change from: + Best practice 11: Use Nested Assertions for Dependent Behaviors "An assertion author should represent dependent behaviors that are relevant to a compatibility test and apply to the same policy subject using nested policy assertions." o Change to: + Best practice 11: Use Nested Assertions for Dependent or Associated Behaviors "An assertion author should represent dependent or associated behaviors that are relevant to a compatibility test and apply to the same policy subject using nested policy assertions." * Comment: Related to comment above to account for either dependent or associated behavior. o Change from: "Therefore, when providers require dependent behaviors these behaviors should be explicitly specified as assertions in a nested policy expression. When the definition of an assertion allows for nested dependent behaviors, but the use of the assertion only contains an empty nested policy expression, this specific use indicates the specification of no nested dependent behaviors." o Change to: "Therefore, when providers require dependent or associated behaviors these behaviors should be explicitly specified as assertions in a nested policy expression. When the definition of an assertion allows for nested behaviors, but the use of the assertion only contains an empty nested policy expression, this specific use indicates the specification of no nested behaviors." * Comment: Consistent with Asir's question, on first Best Practice in Section 5.7: "Best Practice: Preserve Context-Free Policies" By default, context is part of policies. This should be specific to the attachment mechanism being independent of the policy alternative. * Comment: For this Best Practice 24, this information is unspecified in the Framework. Therefore, is this not outside of the scope of policy framework? We've deferred preferences to v.next which could be related to this text (see: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=4179). o "If an assertion can be attached at multiple points within a policy subject, an assertion author should specify a preferred attachment point for the chosen policy subject." * Comment: In Section 8.1, be specific to what WS-Addressing wsam:addressing indicates in two instances. o [1] Change from: "The “parent” assertion indicates that both forms of responses are supported." o [1] Change to: "The “parent” assertion indicates that WS-Addressing is supported without qualification." o [2] Change from: "Within the specification it was possible for implementers to chose whether they supported anonymous responses or non-anonymous responses in the context of a message exchange patterns." o [2] Change to: "Within the specification it was possible for implementers to chose whether they supported anonymous responses or non-anonymous responses in the context of a message exchange patterns, or whether WS-Addressing is supported without qualification."
Attachments
- application/pdf attachment: Web_Services_PolicyGuidelines-strawman-diff-editorial-comment.pdf
- application/msword attachment: Web_Services_PolicyGuidelines-strawman-diff-editorial-comment.doc
Received on Wednesday, 20 June 2007 05:46:51 UTC