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

I think the onus is on you to prove something, rather than me to prove
nothing, especially if you want the WG to do something.

I know you are arguing that some policies need ordering.  I'm arguing
you need to show some policies that need ordering.

Cheers,
Dave 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ashok malhotra [mailto:ashok.malhotra@oracle.com] 
> Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2007 3:28 AM
> To: David Orchard
> Cc: public-ws-policy@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Ordering of Assertions: Comment on WS-Policy Primer LCWD
> 
> I'll make it still shorter:
> 
> I'm arguing that SOME policies need ordering.  The Policy 
> Framework says so and the fact the there are ordering 
> assertions in WS SecurityPolicy confirms this.
> 
> Are you arguing that NO policies need ordering?
> 
> Ashok
> 
> David Orchard wrote:
> 
> >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
> >>
> >>    
> >>
> >
> >  
> >
> 
> 
> --
> All the best, Ashok
>

Received on Thursday, 11 October 2007 14:14:15 UTC