[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [soa-rm-ra] SOA-RA(F) reorganization - contract2policy,policy0contract
Policy, issued after the service contract is set, does not exist for the consumer signed this contract. If the policy is a part of the Execution Context, this is another argument why EC must be a part of the service description and, respectively, service contracts: a change in the EC, such as in the Ken's example, should be included into existing contracts if we want consumers to follow this policy, i.e. contracts should be changed appropriately. Otherwise, if my contract is not changed, I, as a consumer, do not care about "only Zune players are allowed on the premises" :-) - Michael > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Ken Laskey" <klaskey@mitre.org> > To: "Francis McCabe" <frankmccabe@mac.com> > Cc: "Mike Poulin" <mpoulin@usa.com>, "soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org RA" <soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org> > Subject: Re: [soa-rm-ra] SOA-RA(F) reorganization - contract2policy, policy0contract > Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2009 12:41:12 -0400 > > > So would an example be that my company signs a contract covering > the full range of Microsoft products and they then issue a policy > that only Zune players are allowed on the premises? No one > outside those involved need to know about the contract but the > issuing of the policy follows as a seemingly disconnected action. > > Ken > > On Apr 13, 2009, at 12:29 PM, Francis McCabe wrote: > > > This is a completely separate issue. Any time you have any public > > semantics intermixing with private semantics you have to be > > careful. This is not a reason to toss out contracts referring to > > policies or vice versa. > > In the case of a policy arising from a contract, it is sufficient > > that the owner of the policy is enforcing it; third parties need > > not know why the policy is being enforced, they only need to > > know what policies are enforced (and they need to decide whether > > or not such policies are acceptable to them. > > > > In general, there are many many times an actor's public actions > > (such as promulgating a policy) arise from private > > considerations. There is nothing special about contracts > > On Apr 13, 2009, at 8:07 AM, Mike Poulin wrote: > > > >> Frank, > >> if you agree that service contract is a private agreement > >> between service provider and one or several service consumers, > >> then let's assume we have created a public policy referred to > >> this contract. Such policy may be used and reused, and exists > >> as unconditional one- side rule to be enforced onto others, let > >> say, by the service provider. I am as a service consumer have > >> to adhere to this policy. However, the policy contains a > >> restricted element - a reference to the private contract. I am > >> as a consumed do not accept such policy and require disclosure > >> ( I can do this because I am who is paying for the service use). > >> > >> Can you imagine what a mess we can create if we allow public > >> policies to refer to private contracts? > >> > >> - Michael > >> > >> ----- Original Message ----- > >> From: "Francis McCabe" > >> To: "Ken Laskey" > >> Cc: "Mike Poulin" , "James Odell" , "soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org" > >> Subject: Re: [soa-rm-ra] SOA-RA(F) reorganization > >> Date: Sun, 12 Apr 2009 18:12:19 -0700 > >> > >> Either way, I see no reason for such a restriction > >> On Apr 12, 2009, at 6:03 PM, Ken Laskey wrote: > >> > >>> I will reread but I thought the insistence was policies not > >>> referring to contracts. > >>> > >>> On Apr 12, 2009, at 8:49 PM, Francis McCabe wrote: > >>> > >>>> I do not believe that we ever signed up for Michaels > >>>> insistence on contracts not referring to policies. I for one > >>>> do not. > >>>> On Apr 12, 2009, at 5:46 PM, Ken Laskey wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> It appears we agree on the specifics for policies and > >>>>> contracts, and indeed did discuss much of this before. I'm > >>>>> wondering if something critical got lost in the last Policy > >>>>> section shuffle that eld to the current text. > >>>>> > >>>>> Ken > >>>>> > >>>>> On Apr 12, 2009, at 7:24 PM, Mike Poulin wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> As I recall, a year ago I initiated a discussion here about > >>>>>> relationship between Policies and Contracts. Now, it looks > >>>>>> like James has picked up my position. I said that time that: > >>>>>> 1) contracts (due to their private matter) may not refer to > >>>>>> each other while policies may and effectively do > >>>>>> 2) contracts may include more things than just policies or > >>>>>> references to policies, e.g. a selection of a subset of > >>>>>> services interfaces derived from the service description. > >>>>>> This information is not really a policy though it may be > >>>>>> expressed in the form of policy assertions > >>>>>> 3) there may be different types of policies - for the > >>>>>> service development and for the run-time. The latter must > >>>>>> be mentioned in the service contracts as well as in the > >>>>>> service descriptions (otherwise the consumer is not obliged > >>>>>> to be compliant with non- specified policies), the former > >>>>>> does not need such mentioning but they might be included > >>>>>> into development tools and design controls. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> In any case, Policies AND Contracts deserve much more > >>>>>> attention in SOA RM. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> - Michael > >>>>>> > >>>>>> ----- Original Message ----- > >>>>>> From: "James Odell" > >>>>>> To: soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org > >>>>>> Subject: [soa-rm-ra] SOA-RA(F) reorganization > >>>>>> Date: Sat, 11 Apr 2009 17:46:06 -0400 > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Hi all, > >>>>>> > >>>>>> After yet another reading of the SOA-RA (Foundation?) and > >>>>>> having sat through the recent spate of meetings, I have the > >>>>>> following say about the reorganization of the SOA-RA: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Overall, I think that the chapters and topics are sequenced > >>>>>> in a coherent and logical manner. Perhaps, it is because I > >>>>>> read it too many times now. But, I don’t think so. > >>>>>> Also, I understand the need to minimize the amount of work > >>>>>> needed on the SOA-RA at this point in its development. We > >>>>>> need to get it released for public comment — without > >>>>>> compromising quality and understandability, of course. > >>>>>> Having said this, the only thing that bothers me enough to > >>>>>> suggest a reorganizational change is the area of Policies: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> 1) Policies, in general, are depicted in document far > >>>>>> earlier than they are finally addressed (by 40-50 pages). > >>>>>> Since policies — IMO — are an important ingredient in the > >>>>>> SOA-RA, I would like to see them addressed earlier. (My > >>>>>> personal opinion is that policies are not mentioned > >>>>>> anywhere near the amount that they should. For example, > >>>>>> they are used in events, composition of services, roles, > >>>>>> and organizations. However, since this would involve > >>>>>> additions to the current document, I will not push this) > >>>>>> > >>>>>> 2) I strongly dislike grouping the entire topic with > >>>>>> contracts. While policies are used for contracts, Policy is > >>>>>> a standalone concept — which neither depends on nor is used > >>>>>> solely with Contract. (Even the OMG and W3C treat policies > >>>>>> as a separate notion.) Why is this reasonable? Because > >>>>>> policies are used in a variety of situations — only one of > >>>>>> which is contracts. By placing Policies in lock step with > >>>>>> (and almost subordinate to) with Contracts is not > >>>>>> appropriate, IMO. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> 3) My suggestion: separate Policies and Contracts into two > >>>>>> distinct subsections (e.g., 4.4 and 4.5). > >>>>>> > >>>>>> In short, this would provide clarity for the notion of > >>>>>> Policy and not require much change to the current document. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> All the best, > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Jim > >>>>>> > >>>>>> -- > >>>>>> Be Yourself @ mail.com! > >>>>>> Choose From 200+ Email Addresses > >>>>>> Get a Free Account at www.mail.com! > >>>>> > >>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>>>> Ken Laskey > >>>>> MITRE Corporation, M/S H305 phone: 703-983-7934 > >>>>> 7515 Colshire Drive fax: 703-983-1379 > >>>>> McLean VA 22102-7508 > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >>> > >>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>> Ken Laskey > >>> MITRE Corporation, M/S H305 phone: 703-983-7934 > >>> 7515 Colshire Drive fax: 703-983-1379 > >>> McLean VA 22102-7508 > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> > >> << smime.p7s >> > >> > >> -- > >> Be Yourself @ mail.com! > >> Choose From 200+ Email Addresses > >> Get a Free Account at www.mail.com! > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Ken Laskey > MITRE Corporation, M/S H305 phone: 703-983-7934 > 7515 Colshire Drive fax: 703-983-1379 > McLean VA 22102-7508 > -- Be Yourself @ mail.com! Choose From 200+ Email Addresses Get a Free Account at www.mail.com
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]