RE: [ws-sx] WS-Policy and WS-Trust

["Ashok Malhotra" <ashok.malhotra@oracle.com>]

We live in an uncertain world so there are no guarantees, but as part of the WS-Policy WG I know that they are trying hard to keep to the schedule.  My personal assessment is that they will finish on time.

All the best, Ashok

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael McIntosh [mailto:mikemci@us.ibm.com]
> Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2007 3:43 PM
> To: Ashok Malhotra
> Cc: Anthony Nadalin; Greg Whitehead; Tony Gullotta; ws-sx
> Subject: RE: [ws-sx] WS-Policy and WS-Trust
> 
> "Ashok Malhotra" <ashok.malhotra@oracle.com> wrote on 03/08/2007 04:55:16
> PM:
> 
> > For the record, the WS-Policy charter says that they will go into CR
> > in March.  This was just completed.  The plan is to go to PR in July and
> then
> > to recommendation.  Clearly, these are estimates but so far the WG
> > has done well and followed the timeline.
> >
> > So, if we want to wait for PR, we have to wait 4 months.
> 
> That is the plan, but who is to say that someone won't come along at the
> last minute and vote against it? We can't be dependent on that.
> 
> >
> > All the best, Ashok
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Tony Gullotta [mailto:tony.gullotta@soa.com]
> > > Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2007 12:55 PM
> > > To: Greg Whitehead; Michael McIntosh
> > > Cc: Anthony Nadalin; ws-sx
> > > Subject: RE: [ws-sx] WS-Policy and WS-Trust
> > >
> > > Ok. So I know this is ugly, may not be allowed, and most likely
> everyone
> > > will hate it but I'll throw it out there. Can we host that version of
> > > the ws-policy xsd along with the ws-sx xsds and just change the
> > > schemaLocation attribute so consumers would pull that version of the
> > > ws-policy xsd? Does that require a formal submission?
> > >
> > > We are locked in on that version so we won't get any fixes to issues
> > > that may be raised but I think that's ok.
> > >
> > > Tony
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Greg Whitehead [mailto:greg.whitehead@hp.com]
> > > Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2007 12:28 PM
> > > To: Tony Gullotta; Michael McIntosh
> > > Cc: Anthony Nadalin; ws-sx
> > > Subject: Re: [ws-sx] WS-Policy and WS-Trust
> > >
> > > As stated below, my concerns with referencing the member submission at
> > > W3C
> > > are:
> > >
> > > 1) Is that a stable reference? Does W3C keep member submissions around
> > > and publicly accessible in perpetuity?
> > >
> > > 2) What is the errata process for a member submission at W3C? Is the
> > > WS-Policy working group going to respond to issues with that document
> or
> > > manage errata?
> > >
> > > I guess another question is:
> > >
> > > 3) What is the IPR policy for a member submission at W3C (as compared
> to
> > > what the IPR policy will be on the final output of the WS-Policy
> working
> > > group)?
> > >
> > > -Greg
> > >
> > > On 3/8/07 9:55 AM, "Tony Gullotta" <tony.gullotta@soa.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > I don't think 1) is good considering the input of the ws-policy
> > > > representatives on the call. If they don't feel like ws-policy is
> > > > close to completion, we shouldn't wait for it.
> > > >
> > > > 3) might be ok for ws-trust, but it won't work for
> ws-securitypolicy.
> > > >
> > > > I agree with what you are saying in principal for 2. I'm not sure
> why
> > > > we need to "submit" that spec to OASIS though. By referencing it in
> > > > our spec's and by approving our spec's, isn't that enough? When you
> > > > approve ws-trust or ws-securitypolicy, you are approving the use of
> > > > that ws-policy spec already.
> > > >
> > > > Tony
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Greg Whitehead [mailto:greg.whitehead@hp.com]
> > > > Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2007 12:35 AM
> > > > To: Michael McIntosh
> > > > Cc: Anthony Nadalin; ws-sx
> > > > Subject: Re: [ws-sx] WS-Policy and WS-Trust
> > > >
> > > > I realize it's painful to be having this discussion at this late
> stage
> > >
> > > > in the process, but the fact of the matter is that the process is
> > > > there to ensure the quality of the work that this TC produces.
> > > >
> > > > I, for one, had lost track of this issue and I share the concern
> > > > raised with the no vote about having a normative reference in an
> Oasis
> > >
> > > > spec to another spec that is not itself the final product of Oasis
> or
> > > > any other standards body. Is there even any precedent for this in
> > > Oasis?
> > > >
> > > > My concerns are largely practical: where will people go to obtain
> the
> > > > authoritative copy of the version of the WS-Policy spec that we are
> > > > referencing? Who will manage errata for that version of the
> WS-Policy
> > > > spec if we discover problems down the road?
> > > >
> > > > I think there are several responsible options:
> > > >
> > > > 1) Wait for W3C to finalize WS-Policy and reference that final
> > > version.
> > > >
> > > > 2) Solicit the submission of the version of WS-Policy that we are
> > > > referencing to Oasis WSSX and vote it to CS along with our specs.
> > > > We're implicitly doing this anyway by including a normative
> reference
> > > to it.
> > > >
> > > > 3) Copy the schema for wsp:AppliesTo into WS-Trust (as
> wst:AppliesTo)
> > > > and drop the references to wsp:Policy and wsp:PolicyReference until
> > > > W3C finalizes WS-Policy, at which time we can come out with a new
> > > > version of WS-Trust that adds them back.
> > > >
> > > > -Greg
> > > >
> > > > On 3/7/07 6:23 PM, "Michael McIntosh" <mikemci@us.ibm.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> I think its clear that the intended effect of the commented out
> part
> > > >> of the WS-Trust schema is to match with what the specification
> > > >> describes in text.
> > > >> It was commented to avoid an overly strict interpretation of
> ordering
> > >
> > > >> of elements.
> > > >> It is also clear that,  for any hope of interoperability, message
> > > >> producer and message consumer must use/expect same namespace.
> > > >> We cannot include a vague reference to an undefined WS-Policy
> > > >> namespace - or implementions will not be interoperable.
> > > >> We cannot change to a new namespace and in good faith claim to have
> > > >> demonstrated interoperability.
> > > >> If we decide to change now to the latest WS-Policy draft - what do
> we
> > >
> > > >> do when by the time we get around to last day of next member vote
> > > >> WS-Policy's latest draft has changed again?
> > > >> We cannot continue this cycle until WS-Policy completes its work -
> we
> > >
> > > >> should put stake in ground now with what we have proven works now
> and
> > >
> > > >> revise later when WS-Policy reaches closure.
> > > >> Members of this TC were aware of or should have been aware of this
> > > >> issue all along, one no vote by non-participant member on issue
> that
> > > >> was discussed and addressed in the TC should not cause TC
> > > >> dramatically
> > > >
> > > >> change its plans and schedule for delivery.
> > > >>
> > > >> Regards,
> > > >> Mike
> > > >>
> > > >> Greg Whitehead <greg.whitehead@hp.com> wrote on 03/07/2007 06:00:32
> > > > PM:
> > > >>
> > > >>> If you look more carefully you?ll notice that the wsp namespace
> > > >>> declaration is not used (outside of comments), so it has no impact
> > > >>> on
> > > >
> > > >>> the schema.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> -Greg
> > > >>>
> > > >>> On 3/7/07 4:39 PM, "Anthony Nadalin" <drsecure@us.ibm.com> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>> I just looked at the schema on the web site and I show it there
> > > >>> -----------------
> > > >>> Sent from my BlackBerry Handheld.
> > > >>>
> > > >>>  ----- Original Message -----
> > > >>>  From: Greg Whitehead [greg.whitehead@hp.com]
> > > >>>  Sent: 03/07/2007 03:36 PM
> > > >>>  To: Anthony Nadalin
> > > >>>  Cc: ws-sx <ws-sx@lists.oasis-open.org>
> > > >>>  Subject: Re: [ws-sx] WS-Policy and WS-Trust
> > > >>>
> > > >>> As I said before, there is no wsp:Policy element declared in the
> WS-
> > >
> > > >>> Trust schema file (the only mention of wsp:Policy is in a
> comment).
> > > >>> The content model of RST and RSTR is xs:any.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> -Greg
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> On 3/7/07 4:32 PM, "Anthony Nadalin" <drsecure@us.ibm.com> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>> In the namespace declaration to resolve the wsp:Policy element
> > > >>> -----------------
> > > >>> Sent from my BlackBerry Handheld.
> > > >>>
> > > >>>  ----- Original Message -----
> > > >>>  From: Greg Whitehead [greg.whitehead@hp.com]
> > > >>>  Sent: 03/07/2007 03:24 PM
> > > >>>  To: Anthony Nadalin
> > > >>>  Cc: ws-sx <ws-sx@lists.oasis-open.org>
> > > >>>  Subject: Re: [ws-sx] WS-Policy and WS-Trust
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Perhaps you can point to where it is expressed in the schema. I
> > > >>> certainly don?t see it.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> -Greg
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> On 3/7/07 4:22 PM, "Anthony Nadalin" <drsecure@us.ibm.com> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>> They are expressed in the schema so I'm not following your claim
> as
> > > >>> it has to resolve the scheama use of wsp:Policy
> > > >>> -----------------
> > > >>> Sent from my BlackBerry Handheld.
> > > >>>
> > > >>>  ----- Original Message -----
> > > >>>  From: Greg Whitehead [greg.whitehead@hp.com]
> > > >>>  Sent: 03/07/2007 03:13 PM
> > > >>>  To: Anthony Nadalin
> > > >>>  Cc: <ws-sx@lists.oasis-open.org>
> > > >>>  Subject: Re: [ws-sx] WS-Policy and WS-Trust
> > > >>>
> > > >>> I?m just saying that the only normative reference to the WS-Policy
> > > >>> namespace, or even that wsp:Policy is legal content in an RST, is
> in
> > >
> > > >>> the text of the spec.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> On the call today it was claimed that these dependencies were
> > > >>> expressed in the WS-Trust schema and that doesn?t seem to be the
> > > > case.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> -Greg
> > > >>>
> > > >>> On 3/7/07 1:55 PM, "Anthony Nadalin" <drsecure@us.ibm.com> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>> I don't think that is quite the case, we need a normative
> reference
> > > >>> to resolve wsp:Policy, so where are we to find this, so the
> binding
> > > >>> is normative now as an explicit namespace is used
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Anthony Nadalin | Work 512.838.0085 | Cell 512.289.4122 [image
> > > >>> removed] Greg Whitehead <greg.whitehead@hp.com>
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > > >>> Greg Whitehead <greg.whitehead@hp.com> 03/07/2007 12:01 PM [image
> > > >>> removed] To [image removed] <ws-sx@lists.oasis-open.org> [image
> > > >>> removed] cc [image removed] [image removed] Subject [image
> removed]
> > > >>> [ws-sx] WS-Policy and WS-Trust [image removed] [image removed] I
> > > >>> just
> > > >
> > > >>> took a look at ws-trust-1.3.xsd and the content model for RST and
> > > >>> RSTR is already <xs:any> (the wsp namespace is declared in the xsd
> > > >>> file,
> > > >> but
> > > >>> it is ONLY used in comments).
> > > >>>
> > > >>> So, for what it's worth, the only binding to a particular version
> of
> > >
> > > >>> WS-Policy is in the normative text of the spec.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> -Greg
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > > >
> > >
> >
>