RE: policy vocabulary, will not be applied, oh my!

Ashok,

I don't understand what it means to "make no claims". Does that mean then 
that if I have a policy that has one alternative

<Policy>
   <wsp:TransportSecurity/>
</Policy>

that I can sign or encrypt the message using WS-Security? If I take the 
"makes no claims" interpretation, then I have no idea
whether I can or can't, or should or should not... It is a stab in the 
dark. If an endpoint takes the "makes no claims"
approach to mean: "well, it doesn't say not to do so", then there would be 
no interop with an endpoint that takes it
to mean something like: "dont color outside the lines".

I guess I don't understand why that is an acceptable situation.

If the message is signed, and there is no error... does that mean that the 
receiver validated the signature?
That it was able to decrypt the message? What if the EPRs were encrypted 
and the message flow was asynch
request/response. There would be no error reported back to the sending 
endpoint since the receiving endpoint
couldn't decrypt the message to figure out where to send the fault 
message. Now the sender is operating
under the delusion that everything is copascetic when in fact there is a 
serious problem, because the 
sender chose to color outside the lines instead of doing what it was told 
and nothing more.

I will reiterate the point I tried to make on the call last week. If I 
write a policy that "tells all" then it is conveying
to the extent of awareness at the time the policy was authored, and the 
endpoint deployed: "this is how you talk to
me". There are only two possibilities for stuff that is omitted from the 
policy (regardless of whether there are
more than one alternative)

        1) I don't want that behavior (because I knew about a domain and 
chose to omit the assertions that implied that behavior), or 
        2) I have no idea what those behaviors are that are represented by 
assertion domains not included in my policy, so don't bother trying

In either case, the end result is the same... don't apply those behaviors 
that are not specified in the policy alternative
and you will be more likely to get interop. 

Web services is supposed to be about interoperation across platforms, 
operating systems and programming languages, etc.
So, why would we leave policy as nothing more than a hint. What value is 
there in that?

Monica was asking, (much later in this thread) what has changed. First 
off, it doesn't talk about assertions (AIN), it talks
about behaviors that are not implied not being applied.

In the example above, despite the fact that the policy assertion comes 
from the security policy domain (which 
covers WS-Security) the wsp:TransportSecurity assertion implies ONLY that 
transport security (SSL) is to be applied. Nothing more. 
Thus, the language I have offered says (effectively) in response to the 
question posed above (can or should I sign or encrypt the message): no,
because those behaviors are not implied by wsp:TransportSecurity.

What has changed is that we are no longer taking into consideration the 
policy vocabulary (for which there was apparently
much misunderstanding) and policy alternative vocabulary when it comes to 
the understanding of the semantic implied
by a given alternative. The change eliminates the need to consider other 
alternatives in a policy in the understanding of a given
alternative's semantic. An alternative can be evaluated on its own merits. 
That is the substantive change here.

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

"Ashok Malhotra" <ashok.malhotra@oracle.com> wrote on 05/08/2007 05:17:43 
PM:

> Thanks, Dan, for clarifying.
> 
> So, NOBI has implied negation.  We would rather not have this.  Here
> is how I would phrase it.  Monica also suggested explicit phrasing.
> 
> An alternative should express exactly those behaviors that are 
> indicated by its assertions and make no claims about other assertions. 
> 
> All the best, Ashok 
> 
> From: Daniel Roth [mailto:Daniel.Roth@microsoft.com] 
> Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2007 1:35 PM
> To: Ashok Malhotra; Asir Vedamuthu; Christopher B Ferris; public-ws-
> policy@w3.org
> Subject: RE: policy vocabulary, will not be applied, oh my!
> 
> Hi Ashok,
> 
> Chris? proposal is actually exactly what I meant by NOBI.  An 
> alternative should express exactly those behaviors that are needed 
> for interop and nothing else should be done. 
> 
> For example, if I have an alternative that says I require message 
> security, then requesters should not also enable transport security 
> and expect to interoperate.
> 
> Chris? proposal looks good to me.
> 
> Daniel Roth
> 
> From: public-ws-policy-request@w3.org [mailto:public-ws-policy-
> request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Ashok Malhotra
> Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2007 11:42 AM
> To: Asir Vedamuthu; Christopher B Ferris; public-ws-policy@w3.org
> Subject: RE: policy vocabulary, will not be applied, oh my!
> 
> So, Asir, just to be clear, this position is different from the NOIB
> (No Implied Behavior) that Dan espoused on last Wednesday?s call.
> 
> 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, May 08, 2007 9:22 AM
> To: Christopher B Ferris; public-ws-policy@w3.org
> Subject: RE: policy vocabulary, will not be applied, oh my!
> 
> +1
> 
> An alternative with one or more assertions indicates behaviors 
> implied by those, and only those assertions. If a policy alternative
> does not specify a behavior then the alternative means the behavior 
> is not applied.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Asir S Vedamuthu
> Microsoft Corporation
> 
> 
> From: public-ws-policy-request@w3.org [mailto:public-ws-policy-
> request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Christopher B Ferris
> Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2007 5:01 AM
> To: public-ws-policy@w3.org
> Subject: Re: policy vocabulary, will not be applied, oh my!
> 
> 
> All, 
> 
> I've been thinking about this, and possible language that would make
> things clear to the reader that an alternative's set of 
> assertions implies that ONLY those behaviors implied by those 
> assertions are applied in the context of an interchange 
> governed by that policy alternative. 
> 
> Also, since there isn't an issue to go with this thread, and it may 
> well end up with CR edits to the 
> spec, I opened an issue (4544) in Bugzilla: 
> 
>         http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=4544 
> 
> The first paragraph in section 3.2 of the Framework currently reads: 
> 
> [Definition: A policy alternative is a potentially empty collection of 
> policy assertions.] An alternative with zero assertions indicates no
> behaviors. An alternative with one or more assertions indicates 
> behaviors implied by those, and only those assertions. [Definition: A 
> policy vocabulary is the set of all policy assertion types used in a
> policy.] [Definition: A policy alternative vocabulary is the set of all 
> policy assertion types within the policy alternative.] When an 
> assertion whose type is part of the policy's vocabulary is not 
> included in a policy alternative, the policy alternative without the
> assertion type indicates that the assertion will not be applied in 
> the context of the attached policy subject. See the example in Section 
> 4.3.1 Optional Policy Assertions 
> 
> I would propose the following change: 
> 
> [Definition: A policy alternative is a potentially empty collection of 
> policy assertions.] An alternative with zero assertions indicates no
> behaviors. An alternative with one or more assertions indicates 
> behaviors implied by those, and only those assertions. No other 
> behaviors are to be applied for the alternative. 
> 
> The rest of the edits in the original proposal [1] remain unchanged. 
> 
> [1] 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007May/0003.html 
> 
> 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 05/07/2007 09:07:16 AM:
> 
> > 
> > +1,
> > 
> > (Thanks Chris, for providing an example. Makes it much clearer for 
> > understanding issue.)
> > 
> > regards, Frederick
> > 
> > Frederick Hirsch
> > Nokia
> > 
> > 
> > On May 2, 2007, at 5:19 AM, ext Sergey Beryozkin wrote:
> > 
> > > Hi Chris
> > >
> > > Would it be possible to post an example which would show a 
> > > realistic scenario where it's obvious the fact that the input 
> > > policy vocabulary is not included in the effective policy's 
> > > vocabulary may cause the problems for a client ? I just find it 
> > > difficult to understand the reasoning when policies A&B are used in 
> > > examples :-)
> > >
> > > Also, I don't understand why the client can not use the effective 
> > > policy's vocabulary as the guidance on what assertions can be 
> > > applied. The fact that many more assertions might've been involved 
> > > in the intersection seems unimportant to me, the client can not 
> > > apply what the effective policy has now, that is whatever 
> > > assertions are in the selected alternative. I think this is what 
> > > Monica said in the other email (sorry if misinterpreted that email 
> > > reply).
> > >
> > > I hope the practical example will help to understand the problem 
> > > better
> > >
> > > Thanks, Sergey
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: Christopher B Ferris
> > > To: public-ws-policy@w3.org
> > > Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2007 9:22 PM
> > > Subject: policy vocabulary, will not be applied, oh my!
> > >
> > >
> > > There are some related issues/questions/concerns that have been 
> > > expressed by members
> > > of the WG with regards the framework specification as it relates to 
> > > the "will not be applied" principle
> > > and the definions for "policy vocabulary", etc. Below, I have 
> > > enumerated these issues
> > > and suggest a path forward to address those concerns.
> > >
> > > 1. The definition of "policy vocabulary" is incompatible with 
> > > intersected policy as regards to
> > > the "will not be applied" principle because post intersection, the 
> > > resultant policy expression
> > > does not carry the policy vocabulary of the input policy 
> > > expressions. Hence, if a provider
> > > had two alternatives, one with Foo and one without Foo, and the 
> > > result of intersection determined
> > > that the alternative without Foo was compatible with a client's 
> > > policy, then the resultant
> > > policy expression would not have in its vocabulary (as computed 
> > > using the algorithim
> > > currently specified) Foo and hence it would not be clear whether 
> > > Foo carries with it
> > > the "will not be applied" semantic.
> > >
> > > Action-283 - http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/ 
> > > 2007Apr/0103.html
> > > Action-284 - http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/ 
> > > 2007Apr/0106.html
> > > Ashok email - http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/ 
> > > 2007Apr/0065.html
> > >
> > > 2. There is a degree of confusion regarding the "will not be 
> > > applied" semantic as it applies to nested policy.
> > > This is related to the interpretation of "policy vocabulary" that 
> > > many held prior to the clarification provided by
> > > Microsoft
> > >
> > > Asir's email on nested policy vocabulary - http://lists.w3.org/ 
> > > Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Apr/0017.html
> > >
> > > 3. As a result, a number of email threads have sprung up that 
> > > question the merits of the "will not be applied"
> > > semantic.
> > >
> > > Ashok - http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/ 
> > > 2007Apr/0065.html
> > > Dale - http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Apr/ 

> > > 0075.html
> > > Ashok - http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/ 
> > > 2007Apr/0101.html
> > > Dale - http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Apr/ 

> > > 0108.html
> > >
> > > It may be that the most prudent course forward would be to drop the 
> > > "will not be applied" semantic as relates
> > > policy vocabulary. As a result, there is little need of a normative 
> > > definion for policy vocabulary or policy alternative
> > > vocabulary, as these definitions only served to allow one to 
> > > determine whether the behavior implied by a
> > > given assertion carried the "will not be applied" semantic.
> > >
> > > Instead, we could simply state that the behavior implied by an 
> > > assertion that is absent from a given alternative
> > > is not to be applied in the context of the attached policy subject 
> > > when that alternative is engaged.
> > > This would provide clearer semantic (I believe) to borth assertion 
> > > and policy authors.
> > >
> > > The attached mark-up of the policy framework specification contains 
> > > the changes that I believe would
> > > be necessary to affect this change.
> > >
> > > Impact analysis:
> > >
> > > - The proposed change does not affect the XML syntax
> > > - Nor does it impact the semantics of the namespace, therefore the 
> > > namesapce URI can remain unchanged
> > > - It does not affect the processing model (normalization, 
> > > intersection)
> > > - It does not impact testing results to date
> > > - It does not affect any of the assertion languages developed to 
date
> > >
> > > The related questsion that needs to be asked should we choose to 
> > > adopt this proposal is:
> > >
> > >         Does this change affect any implementations?
> > >
> > > From analysis of the set of test cases, the answer is not clear, 
> > > because there were no tests that
> > > excercised either policy vocabulary or the "will not be applied" 
> > > semantic. Thus, it would be important that
> > > we check our respective implementations to ascertain whether there 
> > > would be any impact. From an IBM
> > > perspective, this change does not impact our implementation.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 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
> > 
> >