[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [ws-rx] [WS-RX] Issue i0024 - take 2
Chris, There are two separate subissues: 1) We decided as a resolution of i009/24 that the policy assertion has the semantics of "observed" or "informational". We need wordings in the spec that say what this means. 2) Should there be a WS-Policy semantic decoration that indicates that the assertion is informational/observed? I think we can close on (1) quickly by agreeing on the wordings. (2) requires more discussion. On (2), the charter makes defining the syntax out-of-scope, but there is nothing stopping us from saying that we need a syntactic way to indicate that something is informational/operational (if the TC so decides) -- this can serve as a feedback/requirement for WS-Policy standardization (as indicated by the charter). -Anish -- Christopher B Ferris wrote: > > Ashok, > > I'm not convinced that we have a dilemma at all. IMO, the authors of a > policy assertion > have the prerogative to define its semantics as they see fit. I don't > see a requirement > that we need to have a WS-Policy semantic decoration that indicates > whether an > assertion is informational or operational. > > Cheers, > > Christopher Ferris > STSM, Emerging e-business Industry Architecture > email: chrisfer@us.ibm.com > blog: http://webpages.charter.net/chrisfer/blog.html > phone: +1 508 377 9295 > > Ashok Malhotra <ashok.malhotra@oracle.com> wrote on 10/10/2005 07:16:44 PM: > > > Correcting typo: > > > > As I see it, we are on the horns of a dilemma, our charter says we > > must use WS-Policy as is, but > > WS-Policy does not let us define the semantics of the RM (AND the > > QoS) assertion. We need a > > creative solution to get around this! > > > > All the best, Ashok > > > > > > From: Ashok Malhotra [mailto:ashok.malhotra@oracle.com] > > Sent: Monday, October 10, 2005 3:54 PM > > To: Patil, Sanjay; Yalcinalp, Umit; Christopher B Ferris > > Cc: ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org > > Subject: RE: [ws-rx] [WS-RX] Issue i0024 - take 2 > > > Hi Sanjay: > > I'm not disagreeing with you but let me explain how we got to this > situation. > > > > At the f2f someone suggested that issue 24 could be resolved in the > > manner we had resolved > > another issue, I think issue 9, by appealing to the wsp: > > Usage='Observed' in WS-Policy. > > This seemed right to me and I agreed to suggest wording. When I > > wrote the wording and > > checked the spec I realized that the wsp:Usage='Observed' had > > somewhat different semantics than > > what we had discussed and, further, wsp:Usage had been removed from > > the latest version of WS-Policy. > > > > So now, WS-Policy does not have a mechanism to distinguish between > > assertions that impact > > message content, such as encryption, and assertions that do not > > impact message content but are > > useful as properties of the service such as Auditing, Privacy Policy > and RM. > > > > As I see it, we are on the horns of a dilemma, our charter says we > > must use WS-Policy as is but > > WS-Policy does not let us define the semantics of the RM (at the > > QoS) assertion. We need a > > creative solution to get around this! > > > > All the best, Ashok > > > > > > From: Patil, Sanjay [mailto:sanjay.patil@sap.com] > > Sent: Monday, October 10, 2005 2:32 PM > > To: ashok.malhotra@oracle.com; Yalcinalp, Umit; Christopher B Ferris > > Cc: ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org > > Subject: RE: [ws-rx] [WS-RX] Issue i0024 - take 2 > > > > > This discussion seems to be getting into generic policy framework > > areas and should be carried elsewhere, IMHO. > > > > As far as the issue i024 is concerned, my recollection is that at > > the Redmond F2F [1] the TC agreed to resolve this issue by adding > > *clarification text* to the specs about the meaning of the term > > "observed" (assuming this term is used for describing the DA > > assertions, etc.). An AI was opened [2] specifically to track the > > needed clarification. > > > > I am concerned that we may now be expanding the scope of this issue > > by suggesting normative changes (which is more than *clarification > > text*) that not just affect the WS-RX specifications but they also > > presuppose certain feature enhancements (such as wsp:Informational) > > to other specifications that are outside the scope of this TC. > > > > May I suggest to limit the scope of this AI to what the TC agreed > > with, that is, add : clarification text on meaning of “observed” in > this spec. > > > > Thanks, > > Sanjay > > > > [1] http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ws-rx/download. > > php/14693/MinutesWSRXF2f-0905.htm#_Toc115510920 > > [2] http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ws- > > rx/members/action_item.php?action_item_id=1048 > > > > > > > > > > From: Ashok Malhotra [mailto:ashok.malhotra@oracle.com] > > Sent: Monday, Oct 10, 2005 13:34 PM > > To: Yalcinalp, Umit; Christopher B Ferris > > Cc: ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org > > Subject: RE: [ws-rx] [WS-RX] Issue i0024 - take 2 > > > Hi Umit: > > I think we agree that we need to distinguish between two kinds of > > assertions: those that impact message content and those that do not > > and merely provide information about the service. If we agree, then > this > > distinction will need to be explained somehow. > > > > WS-Policy only discusses assertions that impact message content. > > Normalization is done to cast the > > policy in a form that distinguishes between policy alternatives that > > the client can select from or the client and server can match > > constraints and capabilities. Since informational assertions do not > > participate in client > > selection or client/server policy matching they do not have to > > participate in normalization. > > > > Also, I don't see how the wsp:Optional attribute would apply to > > informational assertions. > > > > All the best, Ashok > > > > > > From: Yalcinalp, Umit [mailto:umit.yalcinalp@sap.com] > > Sent: Monday, October 10, 2005 11:23 AM > > To: ashok.malhotra@oracle.com; Christopher B Ferris > > Cc: ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org > > Subject: RE: [ws-rx] [WS-RX] Issue i0024 - take 2 > > > I am still struggling with why we need an explicit marker to > > designate informational policies. Can you elaborate what you have > > written below in terms of why informational policies need to be > > treated differently within the WS-Policy framework? > > > > There are two issues: recognizing sth is informational and treating > > it differently in the framework. > > > > Lets explore the first. In the WS-Policy framework, the QName of the > > assertion is crucial to designate the type of the assertion. Thus, > > one could also infer that the RM assertion is informational from the > > QName, thus not rendering the presence of such a marker unnecessary > > for designating sth is informational or not. > > > > We are left with the latter problem, whether the informational > > policy should be treated differently by the WS-Policy framework. > > This is where I have a bit of problem as I am having difficulty in > > understanding why "informational" policies should be treated > > differently (whether it would be for normalization, computing > > alternatives, etc). IMO, after you compute the alternatives, the > > assertions whether they are informational or not should apply. Even > > if a policy may not affect the message content "explicitly", this > > does not mean that it would not be in effect if it is declared for a > > policy subject. If it is not possible to "quarantee" that an > > informational policy is in effect by just inspecting the "message > > content", this does not change the fact which assertion applies to a > > specific set of alternates, does it? > > > > Therefore, I need your help to illustrate why you regard this kind > > of policy to be different and should be treated differently within > > the WS-Policy framework. If we don't need it to be treated > > differently, then we can just rely on the QName trick and do not > > need this explicit marker... > > > > Cheers, > > > > --umit > > > > > > From: Ashok Malhotra [mailto:ashok.malhotra@oracle.com] > > Sent: Sunday, Oct 09, 2005 2:04 PM > > To: Christopher B Ferris > > Cc: ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org > > Subject: RE: [ws-rx] [WS-RX] Issue i0024 - take 2 > > > Yes, it was. But we need some mechanism to distinguish between > > assertions that impact the message > > content, such as encryption, versus assertions that merely provide > > information about messages such as > > auditing or reliable messaging. This is important because the > > former require message processing and > > possibly validating that the assertion has been applied while the > > latter do not. Thus, clients and servers > > treat these two kinds of messages quite differently. > > All the best, Ashok > > > > > > From: Christopher B Ferris [mailto:chrisfer@us.ibm.com] > > Sent: Saturday, October 08, 2005 5:38 PM > > To: ashok.malhotra@oracle.com > > Cc: ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org > > Subject: Re: [ws-rx] [WS-RX] Issue i0024 - take 2 > > > > > Ashok, > > > > The wsp:Usage attribute was removed from the WS-Policy spec [1] when > > it was last published in Sept 2004. > > > > [1] http://www.ibm. > > com/developerworks/webservices/library/specification/ws-polfram/ > > > > Cheers, > > > > Christopher Ferris > > STSM, Emerging e-business Industry Architecture > > email: chrisfer@us.ibm.com > > blog: http://webpages.charter.net/chrisfer/blog.html > > phone: +1 508 377 9295 > > > > Ashok Malhotra <ashok.malhotra@oracle.com> wrote on 10/08/2005 > 04:27:25 PM: > > > > > Anish pointed out that the wording I had suggested for i0024 was in > > > the non-normative example. > > > In the attached file I have added wording to the normative section > > > 2.2 that explains > > > the RM assertion. The added wording says that the wsp:Usage > > > attribute must be used > > > when the assertion is included in a policy and explains the semantic > > > of this indication. > > > I've set the value of this attribute to 'Informational' rather than > > > 'Observed', as > > > we discussed, to avoid possible confusion with earlier semantics > > of Observed. > > > > > > The new text is in highlighted. > > > > > > All the best, Ashok > > > > > > > > > [attachment "Issue24.pdf" deleted by Christopher B Ferris/Waltham/IBM]
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]