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

Reductive, but practical.  I don't remember you or anybody else
suggesting a review from a group that is doing non-SOAP messages and
headers and using Policy as metadata.   Somehow I'm thinking that we
aren't going to get a flurry of comments from REST centric folks for
what WS-Policy needs to do for them.

Cheers,
Dave

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ashok malhotra [mailto:ashok.malhotra@oracle.com] 
> Sent: Monday, October 15, 2007 7:31 AM
> To: Asir Vedamuthu
> Cc: David Orchard; public-ws-policy@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Ordering of Assertions: Comment on WS-Policy Primer LCWD
> 
> Asir:
> It is reductive to think of WS-Policy only in terms of its 
> applicability to SOAP messages and headers.  It applies 
> equally well to other message formats and, more importantly, 
> can be used to control and configure many other aspects of 
> web services.
> 
> Ashok
> 
> Asir Vedamuthu wrote:
> 
> >Thank you Dave for asking the right question and keeping the 
> discussion focused!
> >
> >
> >Replaying Dave's key question - when does the order of 
> assertions in a policy alternative matter? Reading through 
> the mail archive (~19 mails), it appears that no one has 
> answered your question with "real" assertions.
> >
> >I want to be super clear on facts ...
> >
> >(a) Order of assertions in a policy alternative and order in 
> which behaviors are applied are TWO distinct concepts (let's 
> not conflate them).
> >
> >The former is governed by the WS-Policy Framework [1] - says 
> unordered.
> >
> >The latter (order in which behaviors such as addressing, 
> security, reliability and transaction is applied) is governed 
> by SOAP and SOAP-based protocols [2]. The order of headers 
> and body processing is at the DISCRETION of the SOAP node and 
> SOAP headers may be used to control the order of processing.
> >
> >(b) Order of assertions in a policy alternative has NO 
> bearing on the order in which behaviors are applied [1].
> >
> >(c) The WS-SecurityPolicy spec does NOT rely on the order of 
> assertions in a policy alternative [3].
> >
> >(d) The WS-Security spec provides producers with an option 
> to use [encrypt, sign] or [sign, encrypt] [4]. The 
> WS-SecurityPolicy spec provides assertions [5] to indicate 
> the order of these cryptographic operations (runtime 
> behavior) on a message.
> >
> >Let's look at examples with "real" assertions. The order of 
> assertions in the following policies P1-P4 (and their nested 
> policies) are different but the policies are effectively the SAME.
> >
> >P1)
> ><Policy>
> >  <sp:AsymmetricBinding>
> >    <Policy>
> >     ...
> >     <sp:IncludeTimestamp />
> >     <sp:EncryptBeforeSigning />
> >     <sp:EncryptSignature />
> >     <sp:ProtectTokens />
> >   </Policy>
> >  </sp:AsymmetricBinding>
> >  <wsam:Addressing>...</wsam:Addressing>
> >  ...
> ></Policy>
> >
> >P2)
> ><Policy>
> >  <wsam:Addressing>...</wsam:Addressing>
> >  <sp:AsymmetricBinding>
> >    <Policy>
> >     ...
> >     <sp:IncludeTimestamp />
> >     <sp:EncryptBeforeSigning />
> >     <sp:EncryptSignature />
> >     <sp:ProtectTokens />
> >   </Policy>
> >  </sp:AsymmetricBinding>
> >  ...
> ></Policy>
> >
> >P3)
> ><Policy>
> >  <wsam:Addressing>...</wsam:Addressing>
> >  <sp:AsymmetricBinding>
> >    <Policy>
> >     ...
> >     <sp:IncludeTimestamp />
> >     <sp:EncryptSignature />
> >     <sp:ProtectTokens />
> >     <sp:EncryptBeforeSigning />
> >   </Policy>
> >  </sp:AsymmetricBinding>
> >  ...
> ></Policy>
> >
> >P4)
> ><Policy>
> >  <wsam:Addressing>...</wsam:Addressing>
> >  <sp:AsymmetricBinding>
> >    <Policy>
> >     ...
> >     <sp:EncryptBeforeSigning />
> >     <sp:IncludeTimestamp />
> >     <sp:EncryptSignature />
> >     <sp:ProtectTokens />
> >   </Policy>
> >  </sp:AsymmetricBinding>
> >  ...
> ></Policy>
> >
> >[1] 
> >http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/REC-ws-policy-20070904/#rPolicy_Alternative
> >[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/REC-soap12-part1-20030624/#procsoapmsgs
> >[3] 
> >http://docs.oasis-open.org/ws-sx/ws-securitypolicy/200702/ws-
> securitypo
> >licy-1.2-spec-os.html#_Toc161826510
> >[4] WS-Security 1.1 - see section 8, lines 1173-1183 - " 
> "Finally, if a producer wishes to sign a message before 
> encryption, then following the ordering rules laid out in 
> section 5, "Security Header", they SHOULD first prepend the 
> signature element to the <wsse:Security> header, and then 
> prepend the encryption element, ... Likewise, if a producer 
> wishes to sign a message after encryption, they SHOULD first 
> prepend the encryption element to the <wsse:Security> header, 
> and then prepend the signature element." "
> >- 
> >http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/16790/wss-v
> 1.1-spec-o
> >s-SOAPMessageSecurity.pdf [5] 
> >http://docs.oasis-open.org/ws-sx/ws-securitypolicy/200702/ws-
> securitypo
> >licy-1.2-spec-os.html#_Toc161826549
> >
> >Regards,
> >
> >Asir S Vedamuthu
> >Microsoft Corporation
> >
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: public-ws-policy-request@w3.org 
> >[mailto:public-ws-policy-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of David Orchard
> >Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2007 1:59 PM
> >To: ashok.malhotra@oracle.com
> >Cc: 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
> >>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
> >>>>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
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>        
> >>>>
> >>--
> >>All the best, Ashok
> >>
> >>    
> >>
> >
> >
> >  
> >
> 
> 
> --
> All the best, Ashok
>

Received on Monday, 15 October 2007 19:37:40 UTC