Re: [soa-rm-ra] Policy Discussion

[Duane Nickull <dnickull@adobe.com>]

Title: Re: [soa-rm-ra] Policy Discussion

CD!


On 4/15/07 4:42 AM, "Ken Laskey" <klaskey@mitre.org> wrote:

> If you can call in during the ftf, that might be most efficient.
>
> Ken
>
> On Apr 14, 2007, at 11:02 PM, Duane Nickull wrote:
>
> >  I can do a demo during one of our next calls to make it clearer.
> >  
> >  Duane
> >  
> >  
> >  On 4/14/07 11:02 AM, "Ken Laskey" <klaskey@mitre.org> wrote:
> >  
> >  
> > > Additional questions/comments (also additional to Danny's):
> > >  
> > >  - I agree that policies can apply to anything.? In a SOA, the only things within our scope are things that can be affected by service interactions.? So, in general, I like the figure on page 2 because the policy that applies to some resource must also be associated with the service that accesses that resource, e.g. if accessing the resource without regard to SOA requires a license then using a service to access the resource should require the same (or an equivalent) license.
> > >  
> > >  -?Policy Identifier – a unique identifier to act as a pointer to a?specific instance of a policy.?
> > >  This implies Policy is a class and I usually want to be talking about the policy instances?
> > >  
> > >  -?Policy Assertion – A policy assertion represents an individual?
> > >  requirement, capability, or other visible property or action of an?
> > >  actor, resource or ?
> > >  The blank at the end of this sentence is probably appropriate but you should finish it anyway :-)
> > >  
> > >  -?Policy Assertion Type – represents a specialized policy instance?with assertion-specific semantics.
> > >  I like the idea of this because it's more than just "well, of course I have different types of policies" and connects it to something that really differentiates types.? Now this implies we can have a general policy framework but a required declaring of semantics, i.e. the policy vocabulary.
> > >  
> > >  -?Policy Service – a specialized type of service ... has?been complied with in a manner acceptable to grant further access. ?
> > >  I would generalize to say "a manner acceptable to continue the interaction" because the requested interaction might be other than access.
> > >  
> > >  All this said, I'm still struggling over what aspects of a service MAY but SHOULD NOT have policy attached and how this is reflected in a service description.
> > >  
> > >  Ken
> > >  
> > >  On Apr 14, 2007, at 9:00 AM, Duane Nickull wrote:
> > >  
> > >  
> > > >  Did anyone have any comments on the policy contribution?
> > > >  
> > > >  D
> > > >  
> > > >  <Policies ­ general concepts.pdf>
> > > >  
> > >
> > >  ?
> > >  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >  Ken Laskey
> > >  MITRE Corporation, M/S H305?? ??phone:??703-983-7934
> > >  7515 Colshire Drive? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ??fax:? ? ? ??703-983-1379
> > >  McLean VA 22102-7508
> > >  
> > >  
> > >  
> > >  ?
> > >  
> > >  
> > >  
> >
> >    
>
>  
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Ken Laskey
> MITRE Corporation, M/S H305?? ??phone:??703-983-7934
> 7515 Colshire Drive? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ??fax:? ? ? ??703-983-1379
> McLean VA 22102-7508
>
>
>
>