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

This is an interesting variant of the AllInOrder operator.
Making the ordering optional may make it more palatable.
Ashok

Sergey Beryozkin wrote:

> Hi
>  
> As far as I understand, you believe that in those cases when it 
> matters a solution at a framework level would be more efficient than a 
> solution involving domain-specific policy assertions.
>  
> It might be more efficient indeed, as far as a generic hint is 
> concerned. I'd say that it won't make more efficient with respect to 
> what happens afterwards, with what runtime/engine actually does with 
> this hint.
>  
> Nonetheless, if there were a push for a solution at the framework 
> level in v.next then I'd suggest something like :
>  
> <wsp:Policy>
> <wsp:All acme:ordering="recommended">
> <B/>
> <A/>
> </wsp:All>
> </wsp:Policy>
>  
> acme:ordering="recommended" can be placed on any WS-Policy language 
> operator in which case the rule would be for it to propogate down to 
> all <All> descendants at the normalization time.
>  
> This does not affect the intersection. acme:ordering="recommended" is 
> just a hint, the consumer still has to verify it makes sense and is 
> free to ignore this hint. For ex, a consumer dealing with RM and 
> WS-Security may notice this hint or may not.
> Say, when it encounters
>  
> <wsp:Policy acme:ordering="recommended">
> <WS-Security/>
> <WS-RM/>
> </wsp:Policy>
>  
> then it can either reject this policy or ignore the hint and do WS-RM 
> first and only then do WS-Security. What the consumer does is out of 
> scope for the framework.
>  
> Using an attribute like acme:ordering (wsp:ordering) would be much 
> less intrusive, much less complex and more neutral than introducing a 
> general purpose ordering operator.
>  
> Cheers, Sergey
>  
>  
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Natale, Bob" <RNATALE@mitre.org <mailto:RNATALE@mitre.org>>
> To: "David Orchard" <dorchard@bea.com <mailto:dorchard@bea.com>>; 
> <ashok.malhotra@oracle.com <mailto:ashok.malhotra@oracle.com>>
> Cc: <public-ws-policy@w3.org <mailto:public-ws-policy@w3.org>>
> Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2007 10:19 PM
> Subject: RE: Ordering of Assertions: Comment on WS-Policy Primer LCWD
>
>
> Ok, Dave, I'll bite...although I have to say that Ashok's original
> existence proofs (recognition in the Policy Framework and realization
> in SecurityPolicy) strike me as sufficient basis for having to prove
> the counter-argument rather than the pro-argument.  And, yes, I can
> think of multiple ways to achieve the objective of policy ordering
> without adding an operator-like feature to WS-Policy (e.g., multiple
> domain-specific ordering constructs, presumed run-time engine
> omniscience, etc.)...they just all seem less efficient and intuitive to
> me.
>
> So, for a very generic data processing context, I might want instances
> of the following set of policies (sometimes in recursive
> relationships):
>
>    - someCollectionPolicy
>    - someFilteringPolicy
>    - someAggregationPolicy
>    - someCorrelationPolicy
>    - someTaggingPolicy
>    - someSortingPolicy
>    - someClassificationPolicy
>    - someStoragePolicy
>    - someRetentionPolicy (which is also inherently someDeletionPolicy)
>
> The order in which some of these policies are applied in some data
> processing contexts could be significant, it would seem to me...?
>
> Examples from the SCA Policy realm also come to mind.  Actually, many
> do, especially when considering dynamically constructed digital
> run-time policies in response to changing real-world circumstances
> (e.g., in the network management realm).
>
> Cheers,
> BobN
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-ws-policy-request@w3.org 
> <mailto:public-ws-policy-request@w3.org>
> [mailto:public-ws-policy-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of David Orchard
> Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2007 4:59 PM
> To: ashok.malhotra@oracle.com <mailto:ashok.malhotra@oracle.com>
> Cc: public-ws-policy@w3.org <mailto:public-ws-policy@w3.org>
> Subject: RE: Ordering of Assertions: Comment on WS-Policy Primer LCWD
>
>
> I asked my question first, and it's up to you to prove that work needs
> to be done, not the other way around.  That said, you don't seem to
> have
> any intention of answering my question as you've decided to respond to
> my question with a question.  I learned from "Rosencrantz and
> Guildenstern are dead" not to play the question game.
>
> Cheers,
> Dave
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: ashok malhotra [mailto:ashok.malhotra@oracle.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2007 1:33 PM
> > To: David Orchard
> > Cc: public-ws-policy@w3.org <mailto:public-ws-policy@w3.org>
> > Subject: Re: Ordering of Assertions: Comment on WS-Policy Primer LCWD
> >
> > David:
> > Please answer the question.  Is it your position that there
> > are no Policies where the order in which the assertions
> > within a Policy Alternative are applied is important?
> >
> > Ashok
> >
> > David Orchard wrote:
> >
> > >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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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>
> > >>>>>>[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 <mailto: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
> > >>
> > >>   
> > >>
> >
> >
> > --
> > All the best, Ashok
> >
>
>----------------------------
>IONA Technologies PLC (registered in Ireland)
>Registered Number: 171387
>Registered Address: The IONA Building, Shelbourne Road, Dublin 4, Ireland
>  
>


-- 
All the best, Ashok

Received on Friday, 12 October 2007 16:37:38 UTC