RE: New Issue: 5189 Guidelines - BP 19 Lacks Motivation

>28 refer's specifically to WSDL subjects.  If you are
>implying that 28 has broader implications then we may
>consider deleting it from 5.7.2 and putting it in 5.7.1.
Good suggestion, this is an improvement. We request you to prepare a concrete proposal.

> I believe that 19 and 28 address different concerns.

Proposed wording is a compound best practice made up of pieces from other best practices already in the Guidelines document:

>Assertion Authors may recommend assertions be
>annotated with optional attributes

This is covered by "Best Practice 11: Assertion Authors should allow use of wsp:Optional" [1].

>associated with the appropriate [policy]subject

This is covered by "Best Practice 25: ... Policy assertion authors should unambiguously identify the appropriate policy subjects for their assertions." [2]

>may recommend the use of the smallest possible granularity

This is covered by "Best Practice 28 : Choose the Most Granular WSDL Policy Subject. Assertion Authors should choose the most granular WSDL policy subject to which the behavior represented by a policy assertion applies." [3]

Also, BP 25 and 28 apply to all assertions (that includes assertions that are marked optional).

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-ws-policy-guidelines-20070928/#bp-assertion-xml-allow-optional
[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-ws-policy-guidelines-20070928/#bp-identify-policy-subjects
[3] http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-ws-policy-guidelines-20070928/#bp-WSDL-policy-subject-Granularity

Regards,

Asir S Vedamuthu
Microsoft Corporation



From: Maryann Hondo [mailto:mhondo@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Monday, October 15, 2007 11:10 AM
To: Asir Vedamuthu
Cc: public-ws-policy@w3.org; public-ws-policy-request@w3.org
Subject: Re: New Issue: 5189 Guidelines - BP 19 Lacks Motivation


Asir,

Perhaps I wasn't clear enough in my response. I believe that 19 and 28 address different concerns.
19 is intended to address the impact of the optional attribute when applied to a policy subject scope. I think "endpoint"
may not be the best term, so I have supplied an alternative wording to consider.

28 refer's specifically to WSDL subjects.  If you are implying that 28 has broader implications then we may
consider deleting it from 5.7.2 and putting it in 5.7.1.


I suggest this change to the EXISTING BP-- 19.

from:
Assertion Authors should associate optional assertions with the appropriate endpoint and use the smallest possible granularity to limit the degree to which optionality applies.

to:
Assertion Authors may recommend assertions be annotated with optional attributes and associated with the appropriate [policy]subject and may recommend the use of the smallest possible granularity to limit the degree to which optionality applies.


Maryann


Maryann Hondo/Austin/IBM

10/15/2007 09:39 AM

To

Asir Vedamuthu <asirveda@microsoft.com>

cc

"public-ws-policy@w3.org" <public-ws-policy@w3.org>, public-ws-policy-request@w3.org

Subject

Re: New Issue: 5189 Guidelines - BP 19 Lacks MotivationLink<Notes://D03NM118/862566F9001F8F0C/32547D7F59F9E7E38525613200556E77/D22FF727F8B65B4987257373000E2D21>






Asir,
I disagree.

I think the best practice is  necessary.

Perhaps this is a better wording:

Assertion Authors should associate optional assertions with the appropriate endpoint subject and use the smallest possible granularity to limit the degree to which optionality applies." [1]

Maryann



Asir Vedamuthu <asirveda@microsoft.com>
Sent by: public-ws-policy-request@w3.org

10/12/2007 10:34 PM

To

"public-ws-policy@w3.org" <public-ws-policy@w3.org>

cc

Subject

New Issue: 5189 Guidelines - BP 19 Lacks Motivation








Title: Guidelines - BP 19 Lacks Motivation

Description:

"Best Practice 19: Consider entire message exchange pattern when specifying Assertions that may be optional

Assertion Authors should associate optional assertions with the appropriate endpoint and use the smallest possible granularity to limit the degree to which optionality applies." [1]

The best practice that applies to granularity is covered by best practice 28 [2]. It is unclear why an assertion author would associate an assertion with "the appropriate endpoint". It is also unclear what behavior that the best practice is trying to motivate.

Justification: unclear best practice.

Target: Guidelines.

Proposal: This is a two part proposal -

a) Drop best practice 19.
b) s/This is important for an optional assertion where it may not be clear whether it is to apply in a message exchange when optionally used in part of that exchange (Best Practice: Consider entire message exchange pattern when specifying Assertions that may be optional).//

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-ws-policy-guidelines-20070928/#bp-entire-mep-for-optional
[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-ws-policy-guidelines-20070928/#bp-WSDL-policy-subject-Granularity

Regards,

Asir S Vedamuthu
Microsoft Corporation