RE: [Bug 6403] Enumeration: define policy

Geoff wrote:
> In general, we are OK with your proposal for Issue 6403.  Here are 
> our general comments on the proposal.  I will be happy to provide 
> more concrete suggestions in a subsequent email as we are heads-down
> processing multiple WS-RA issues at the moment.
> 
> 
> A)   The <x:FilterDialect> is not a concrete policy assertion but a 
> template. This is the first of a kind. How can the WS-RA WG provide 
> an XML Schema definition to specify the syntax of the assertion?
> Why not just define a policy assertion for the XPath filter dialect?

Can you give an example of what you're thinking of?  I think its important
to do the policy matching w/o needing domain specific code so I'd be
curious to see what you have in mind.

> We do not understand what is the justification of the statement:
>    "the namespace of this element is application defined, but the 
> Local Name MUST be "FilterDialect""
> Why is element matching not using namespaces here?

It _does_ use element matching - so I'm not following.

> >/wsenp:WSEnumeration/wsp:Policy/x:FilterDialect@wsp:Optional
>   This attribute specifies that the assertion is optional per WS-
> Policy. This attribute MUST be present
> 
> B)   The proposal mandates the use of wsp:Optional attribute. But 
> the minimum here would be to allow the use of the attribute and 
> defer the usage of it to service providers.

We can change this, but my thinking was that the use of the Filter
element and any particular filter dialect (even if just one is
supported) is optional for the client.  But we can change this
if people want and assume people are going to be smart enough
to know that they should really include it - esp. when they support
more than one dialect.

> C)   Would it be useful to check if the proposed assertion follows 
> the best practices outlined in the 'Web Services Policy 1.5 - 
> Guidelines for Policy Assertion Authors' doc [1]. 
> 
> At a glance, it appears that the proposal does not follow best 
> practices 6, 8, 9, 15, 20, 29 and 31.

Feel free to do so, but the only one that seems interesting is
29 and I think I got that covered, but we can use more WSDL-specific
wording if needed.
 
> --Geoff
> 
> 
> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/NOTE-ws-policy-
> guidelines-20071112/#best-practices-list
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-ws-resource-access-notifications-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:public-ws-resource-access-notifications-request@w3.org] On 
> Behalf Of bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org
> Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2009 1:39 PM
> To: public-ws-resource-access-notifications@w3.org
> Subject: [Bug 6403] Enumeration: define policy
> 
> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6403
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --- Comment #4 from Robert Freund <bob@freunds.com>  2009-04-21 20:38:56 
---
> modified proposal as above with the following:
> 
> insert after :/wsenp:WSEnumeration/wsp:Policy/x:FilterDialect
> An endpoint should include a filterdialect policy assertion for each of 
the
> filter dialects that it supports.
> 
> 
> -- 
> Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
> ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
> You are the QA contact for the bug.
> 
> 
>