W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-policy@w3.org > October 2007

Re: Ordering of Assertions: Comment on WS-Policy Primer LCWD

From: Anthony Nadalin <drsecure@us.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 21:29:26 -0500
To: ashok.malhotra@oracle.com
Cc: David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>, public-ws-policy@w3.org, public-ws-policy-request@w3.org
Message-ID: <OFE52B722A.BB2D6318-ON86257371.000D9A5C-86257371.000DAEB6@us.ibm.com>

WS-SecurityPolicy discusses order ONLY as an assertion, otherwise there is
no ordering

Anthony Nadalin | Work 512.838.0085 | Cell 512.289.4122

  From:       ashok malhotra <ashok.malhotra@oracle.com>                                                                 
  To:         David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>                                                                           
  Cc:         public-ws-policy@w3.org                                                                                    
  Date:       10/10/2007 04:06 PM                                                                                        
  Subject:    Re: Ordering of Assertions:  Comment on WS-Policy Primer LCWD                                              

Hi Dave:
I used the fact that WS-SecurityPolicy discusses order to motivate the
need for order in at least some policies.
I also quoted from the note from Tony Rogers.  Subsequently, there was a
note from Bob Natale who agrees that
order is important but does not like the solution I suggested.

What needs to be made clear is that order is not important in all
policies, but there are situations where it is important
and for these situations we need a solution.


David Orchard wrote:

>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: public-ws-policy-request@w3.org
>>[mailto:public-ws-policy-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of ashok malhotra
>>Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2007 9:56 AM
>>To: public-ws-policy@w3.org
>>Subject: Ordering of Assertions: Comment on WS-Policy Primer LCWD
>>In many cases the
>>order in which assertions are processed may not matter, but
>>where it does matter do we need to specify a special
>>assertion for every pair of assertions that need to be
>>ordered? Clearly, this is not feasible as the Policy
>>processing engine will need to be undated whenever a new
>>ordering assertion is added. So, what we need is a
>>general-purpose ordering assertion.
>Your note jumps from assumption to conclusion to design with great
>speed, indeed from assumption to conclusion within 3 sentences.  Those 3
>fleety sentences do not answer my previous emails central question of
>"when does order matter?".  In case my question was missed, perhaps
>because of burdensom length of my previous message, I'll ask again more
>When does order matter?
>Until the use case is agreed by the WG, design discussions are very
>premature IMHO.

All the best, Ashok

(image/gif attachment: graycol.gif)

(image/gif attachment: ecblank.gif)

Received on Thursday, 11 October 2007 03:29:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:33:34 UTC