[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [sca-policy] SCA Policy RFC2119 Review Document [POLICY-62] F2F Actions
Please let me know what version I should use for proposals on rx and tx intents and the conformance section. > -----Original Message----- > From: ashok malhotra [mailto:ashok.malhotra@oracle.com] > Sent: 31 January 2009 22:29 > To: eric.wells@hitachisoftware.com > Cc: sca-policy@lists.oasis-open.org > Subject: Re: [sca-policy] SCA Policy RFC2119 Review Document [POLICY-62] F2F Actions > > 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 > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]