Re: [sca-policy] SCA Policy RFC2119 Review Document [POLICY-62]F2F Actions

[ashok malhotra <ashok.malhotra@oracle.com>]

Thanks, Eric!
When you and Dave tell me you are done with the RFC 2119 stuff I want to 
apply a couple of issues.
All the best, Ashok


Eric Wells wrote:
> 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
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
> generates this mail.  Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
> https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php 
>
>