[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: SCA Policy RFC2119 Review Document [POLICY-62] F2F Actions
All, a new draft of the SCA Policy spec with Action from the F2F completed is at: http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/30985/sca-policy-1.1-spec- CD01-Rev13d.doc I have tried to apply all the "editorial" actions relating to issue POLICY-62 the RFC2119 review and NO OTHERS. My understanding is that we need a "base" document that is free of RFC2119 issues that we can vote on for a new CD before making any other changes (new issues etc). Note that "editorial" in this case does go a little beyond correcting spelling mistakes so PLEASE REVIEW THE DOCUMENT CAREFULLY. I found it difficult to sort out some of the previous changes while reviewing the document (in MS WORD) so I have added a comment to each changed section that point to the AI in the F2F minutes. This should make it easier to see why things were changed. (Also note that this was a joint effort so please don't rely on the changes from one person). There are two items I did not do as I can't recall the details from the F2F and they don't seem to make sense to me. It may be that they have already been applied or I am just not getting it. Either way someone else should take a look. Action 20090128-41: Remove the whole of the last paragraph of 4.10.1 Action 20090128-64: Make [POL90021] non-normative The other actions that remain are either new issues or changes that I don't know enough about the requirements to make a sensible attempt. Best Regards, Eric. Eric Wells. Consulting Engineer. Hitachi Computer Products (America) Inc. San Francisco, CA. USA. +1 (415) 656-4346 eric.wells@hitachisoftware.com COMPLETED ========= Action 20090128-03: Move [POL20001] to the end of section 4.10.1 [POL20001] is now [POL40025] Action 20090128-05: Add a normative statement requiring the @name attribute of an intent to be unique in the Domain (line 257) Action 20090128-06: Remove [POL30014] (line 262 ) Action 20090128-07: Change [POL30004] to read "If an intent has more than one qualifier, one and only one of the qualifiers MUST be declared as the default qualifier. Action 20090128-08: Change [POL30004] to read "One and only one of the qualifiers MUST be declared as the default qualifier." Action 20090128-10: Reword the "should" statements in the 3rd paragraph following the example in 4.3 Actually 3.4 not 4.3 Action 20090128-11: Reword the "should" statement in the 6th paragraph following the example in 4.3 Actually 3.4 not 4.3 Action 20090128-12: Remove the final paragraph of 3.4 (about normatively defined PolicySets) Action 20090128-13: change POL30020 to "If a policySet or intentMap specifies " and then delete POL30009 Action 20090128-14: Change POL30010 For each qualifiable intent listed Action 20090128-15: Remove conformance statement [POL30012] Action 20090128-16: (Dave) Rework the wording of [POL30013] to deal with what "compatible" means in this case Action 20090128-17: Replace "should" with "ought" in the paragraph immediately above the BasicAuthMsgProtSecurity example Action 20090128-19: Remove [POL40002]. Action 20090128-21: Section 4.4.1 bullet 3, change parenthesis to read "rather than to all uses of the composite" Action 20090128-28: Add the word "Any" to the beginning of [POL40009] Action 20090128-29: Change POL40009 and POL40014 as written in the minutes "Any two intents applied to a given element, qualified, MUST NOT be mutually exclusive" [POL40009]" "The intents declared on elements lower in the implementation hierarchy of a given element MUST be applied to the element [POL40014]" Action 20090128-31: Make a new normative statement from the text following POL40014: "A qualifiable intent expressed lower in the hierarchy can be qualified further up the hierarchy in which case the qualified version of the intent MUST apply to the higher level element [POL4xxxx]" Action 20090128-32: Change Rule 2 in 4.5.2 to read: The intents declared on elements higher in the structural hierarchy of a given element MUST be applied to the element EXCEPT o if any of the inherited elements is mutually exclusive with an intent applied to the element, then the inherited intent is ignored o if any of the inherited elements is mutually exclusive with an intent applied to the element, then the inherited intent MUST be ignored o if the overall set of intents from the element itself and from its structural hierarchy contains both an unqualified version and a qualified version of the same intent, the qualified version of the intent MUST be used. Action 20090128-33: Delete [POL40004] from Section 4.5.1 Action 20090128-35: Change [POL40006] to read: "If the policySet on a <componentType/> has a @provides list that includes an intent that is listed in the @provides list of a policySet on the <component/>, the componentType policySet MUST be ignored" Action 20090128-36: Replace the words of [POL40016] with the words in the minutes "When calculating the set of intents and set of policySets which apply to either a service element or to a reference element of a component, intents and policySets from the interface definition and from the interface declaration(s) MUST be applied to the service or reference element and to the binding element(s) belonging to that element. [POL40016]" Action 20090128-37: Replace final paragraph of Section 4.8 with the text in the minutes "The locations where interfaces are defined and where interfaces are declared in the componentType and in a component MUST be treated as part of the implementation hierarchy as defined in Section 4.5 Usage of @requires attribute for specifying intents" [POL40xxx] Action 20090128-39: Replace 2nd paragraph of 4.10.1 with the 2 normative statements in the minutes "The SCA runtime MUST determine the compatibility of the policySets at each end of a wire using the compatibility rules of the policy language used for those policySets" [POL4xxxx] "The policySets at each end of a wire MUST be incompatible if they use different policy languages" [POL4xxxx] Action 20090128-40: Replace 2nd bullet and the numbered list with the following normative statement: "Where the policy language in use for a wire is WS-Policy, strict WS-Policy intersection MUST be used to determine policy compatibility." Action 20090128-42: Remove 2nd paragraph of 4.11 Action 20090128-44: Replace [POL40008] with "An SCA runtime MUST use the algorithm in section 4.12.1 to select concrete policies that apply to various SCA artifacts" Action 20090128-45: Add a section 4.12.1 for the "Algorithm for Matching Intents and PolicySets" Action 20090128-46: Include the Note: section within the "Algorithm" section of 4.12 to make it normative Action 20090128-47: Remove step A.5 from the algorithm in 4.12 Action 20090128-48: Change step A.1 in 4.12 to say "Start with the set of intents specified in the elements' @requires attribute" Action 20090128-49: Change step 8 in 4.12 A to "If the set of intents contains a mutually exclusive pair of intents the SCA runtime MUST raise an error and must stop the algorithm" Action 20090128-50: Replace step B in 4.12 with: "Remove all directly supported intents from the required intent set - directly supported intents are the sets of intents listed in the @alwaysProvides and @mayProvides attributes of the bindingType/implementationType declaration for a binding/implementation element respectively." Action 20090128-55: (Dave) Remove section 7.2.2 Action 20090128-58: Remove [POL90001] as it is a duplicate Action 20090128-59: in definition of managedTransaction.local, add a normative statement requiring that any propagated global transaction MUST NOT be visible to the target component Action 20090128-61: Remove [POL90018] -- it is a duplicate [POL90024] Action 20090128-62: Add a normative statement for "The SCA runtime ignores propagatesTransaction for OneWay methods." in 9.6.1 Action 20090128-63: Correct the table in Section 9.5.2 to provide a normative statement for the "Error" described in Table 1 Section 9.6.2 Action 20090128-67: Delete section 9.7 Note there is a section 9.8 in sca-policy-1.1-spec-CD01-Rev13c which is now renumbered to 9.7 Action 20090128-69: (Chairs) Remove the Non-Normative Text appendix NOT COMPLETED ============= Action 20090128-04: (Dave) Create a normative statement in an appropriate section which reflects the non normative words at the end of section 2.3 Possibly done. Action 20090128-09: (Ashok) Add a reference to the XPath specification for the description of the @appliesTo attribute Action 20090128-18: (Dave) Add a formal definition section for the <policySetAttachment/> element Action 20090128-20: Section 4.4 consider normative statements which are needed to deal with the case of deploying (new) PolicySets to a Domain that already contains deployed artifacts (such as Composites) Action 20090128-22: Reconsider the wording of section 4.4.2 to remove ambiguities and also to ensure that "ancestor inheritance" is properly addressed Action 20090128-30: (Eric) Check the meaning of "applies" and determine if the spec needs a statement added relating to its meaning Action 20090128-34: Mike E to raise an issue to change the normative meaning of [POL40006] "If a component has any policySets applied to it, then any policySets attached to the componentType are ignored" Action 20090128-38: (Dave) Reexamine section 4.9 to determine if there need to be normative statements Action 20090128-41: Remove the whole of the last paragraph of 4.10.1 Possibly done - Don't see why we want to delete the existing paragraph in "sca-policy-1.1-spec-CD01-Rev13c" as posted. Action 20090128-43: Replace 2nd paragraph of 4.12 with wording that captures the concept of expansion of the profile intent Action 20090128-51: Dave Booz & Mike Edwards to review and make proposals for section 4.12.1 Action 20090128-52: (Mike E) Change section 5.1 into a normative definition of implementationType Action 20090128-53: (Mike) Create a normative statement requiring the presence in any Domain of the <definitions/> file containing the intent definitions - and decide on the appropriate location for this statement in the spec Action 20090128-54: (Mike) Add wording to the section about requiring the <definitions/> file to be present encouraging the provision ("should") of concrete policies which satisfy these intents Action 20090128-56: (Dave) Raise an issue to require removal of the Authorization section (7.3 and its subsections) Action 20090128-57: (Martin) Create normative statements for the meaning of each intent defined in the Policy specification Action 20090128-60: Dave to query Assembly TC on the semantics of OneWay messages Action 20090128-64: Make [POL90021] non-normative *** Why? *** Action 20090128-66: (Mike E) Raise an issue to change section 9.6.3 to be a non-normative example Action 20090128-65: (Ashok) Raise an issue that the Qualified intent mechanism is broken and needs fixing Action 20090128-68: (Chairs) To fill in the Acknowledgements appendix Action 20090128-70: (Martin) Create appropriate words for Conformance section
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]