OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

sca-policy message

[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] F2FActions


Thanks Eric! I will pick up the pen on this today now that we have a hiatus from the Java F2F.


Dave Booz
STSM, BPM and SCA Architecture
Co-Chair OASIS SCA-Policy TC and SCA-J TC
"Distributed objects first, then world hunger"
Poughkeepsie, NY (845)-435-6093 or 8-295-6093
e-mail:booz@us.ibm.com

Inactive hide details for "Eric Wells" ---01/31/2009 05:19:19 PM---All,     a new draft of the SCA Policy spec with Action from"Eric Wells" ---01/31/2009 05:19:19 PM---All, a new draft of the SCA Policy spec with Action from the F2F completed is


From:

"Eric Wells" <eric.wells@hitachisoftware.com>

To:

<sca-policy@lists.oasis-open.org>

Date:

01/31/2009 05:19 PM

Subject:

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





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 





[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]