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

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

From: David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 22:11:23 -0700
Message-ID: <BEBB9CBE66B372469E93FFDE3EDC493EDB325C@repbex01.amer.bea.com>
To: <ashok.malhotra@oracle.com>
Cc: <public-ws-policy@w3.org>

I'll make my note even shorter.  

What situations are those?

For the 2nd time, you have failed to specify a single situation that
requires a change to WS-Policy.  You've described a problem that already
has a solution and quotes from other people but those are not answers to
my question. 

In the absence of any real-world problem, the obvious thing for
WS-Policy WG to do is to close with no action.

Cheers,
Dave

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ashok malhotra [mailto:ashok.malhotra@oracle.com] 
> Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2007 1:59 PM
> To: David Orchard
> Cc: public-ws-policy@w3.org
> 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.
> 
> Ashok
> 
> 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
> >>    
> >>
> ><snip/>
> >  
> >
> >>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
> >succinctly:
> >
> >When does order matter?  
> >
> >Until the use case is agreed by the WG, design discussions are very 
> >premature IMHO.
> >
> >Cheers,
> >Dave
> >
> >
> >  
> >
> 
> 
> --
> All the best, Ashok
> 
Received on Thursday, 11 October 2007 05:12:41 UTC

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