[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [uddi-spec] WS-Policy
A more accurate quote of what I said was, "We [Burton Group] are confident that WS-Policy will be in a standards organization by the end of the year." Anne On 7/26/05, Oleg Mikulinsky <oleg.mikulinsky@weblayers.com> wrote: > > > According to this article: > http://www.networkworld.com/news/2005/071405-ws.html. > > "In September, the pair (Microsoft, IBM) will submit WS-Trust, > WS-SecureConversation and WS-SecurityPolicy to the Organization for the > Advancement of Structured Information Standards (OASIS), > > Two significant protocols still remain to be turned over, WS-Federation and > WS-Policy. > Microsoft and IBM say that will happen but have yet to provide a timetable. > The two have been under significant pressure from end users and industry > experts to submit the remaining specifications to help quicken the pace of > standardizing the infrastructure for securing Web services. > WS-Policy appears to be the next protocol that will be submitted. Last > October, IBM and Microsoft presented a workshop on WS-Policy to the W3C. The > prime motivating factor, however, is that Microsoft relies on WS-Policy for > its InfoCard technology. > > And while Microsoft is preaching that InfoCard, which is approaching its > first beta release this fall, will be a standards-based system, WS-Policy > remains the only significant protocol that is not in a standards body. > > "WS-Policy will be in a standards organization by the end of the year," says > Anne Thomas Manes, research director for the Burton Group. Microsoft > officials would not comment on plans for WS-Policy." > > > > ________________________________ > > > > > I think having an open letter from UDDI TC to the WS-Policy framework > authors signed by many TC members is an excellent idea. Let's keep the > pressure up!. > > +1 > > Regards, > Oleg. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Alan Wu [mailto:alan.wu@oracle.com] > Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2005 5:49 PM > To: uddi-spec@lists.oasis-open.org > Subject: Re: [uddi-spec] WS-Policy > > Thanks very much, Claus! > > Zhe > > Miko Matsumura wrote: > > >+1, thanks Claus > > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: von Riegen, Claus [mailto:claus.von.riegen@sap.com] > >Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2005 2:15 PM > >To: dave.prout@bt.com; uddi-spec@lists.oasis-open.org > >Subject: RE: [uddi-spec] WS-Policy > > > >Provided that there is no disagreement, I can take this as a formal > >action item and forward it to the WS-Policy authors' team if you like. > > > >Thanks, > > Claus > > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: dave.prout@bt.com [mailto:dave.prout@bt.com] > >Sent: Dienstag, 26. Juli 2005 17:13 > >To: uddi-spec@lists.oasis-open.org > >Subject: RE: [uddi-spec] WS-Policy > > > > All, > > > >Did we agree that the TC should write to the authors of the WS-Policy > >spec urging them to get it into a standards body ? I know many others > >have probably done this, but I believe we should do it anyway. > > > >Does anybody disagree ? > > > >Thanks > > > >Dave > > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: von Riegen, Claus [mailto:claus.von.riegen@sap.com] > >Sent: 26 July 2005 20:12 > >To: Pete Wenzel; uddi-spec@lists.oasis-open.org > >Subject: RE: [uddi-spec] WS-Policy > > > >Pete, > > > >As far as the OASIS WS-RX TC is concerned, the charter clearly states > >that WS-ReliableMessagingPolicy (which is based on WS-Policy) is in > >scope and that the TC will work on it. Only if at the time the WS-RX TC > >moves to ratify its deliverables WS-Policy is "outside of a > >standardization process", normative references to WS-Policy will be > >removed. > > > >The OASIS UDDI TC can similarly decide to develop material that > >references WS-Policy and not ratifying these deliverables as long as > >WS-Policy is outside of a standardization process. > > > >Claus > > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: Pete Wenzel [mailto:pete@seebeyond.com] > >Sent: Dienstag, 26. Juli 2005 02:34 > >To: uddi-spec@lists.oasis-open.org > >Subject: [uddi-spec] WS-Policy > > > >UDDI Spec TC folks, > > > >While I realize the eventual need for a policy expression language and > >framework, I have definite misgivings with respect to adoption of WS- > >Policy, which to my knowledge is not under the control of any sort of > >standards organization. > > > >Ignoring possibly significant IPR issues for the moment, my technical > >concerns include potential lack of stability, maturity/vetting, and > >consensus-driven development and change-control accountability. > > > >Other TCs have agreed that it is not appropriate to reference WS- > >Policy, and are content to describe the required functionality in an > >abstract manner, while building in extention points for use when a > >suitable standards-track framework becomes available. Following are > >excerpts from WS-Notification, WS-ReliableExchange and WS-Security TC > >documents that illustrate this. Perhaps there are other examples. > > > >I note that the authors of WS-SecurityPolicy have preannounced its > >contribution to OASIS, as reported in > > > http://www.infoworld.com/article/05/07/15/HNwsibm_1.html > >but that depends directly on WS-Policy, so it doesn't seem to alleviate > >any of these concerns. > > > >Is this an accurate assessment of the situation? What do others think? > > > >--Pete > > > > WS-BaseNotification: > > > > wsnt:SubscriptionPolicy > > This optional component is an open component intended to be used in > > an application specific way to specify policy related > > requirements/assertions associated with the subscribe requests. This > > mechanism could be used to govern the message rate (e.g. maximum 3 > > messages per second), reliability of the Notification delivery, etc. > > The semantics of how the NotificationProducer MUST or MAY react to > > the policy requirements and assertions appearing in this component > > are specific to the actual policy grammar used. If this component is > > not specified in the Subscribe request message, then the > > NotificationProducer SHOULD use other means (such as directly > > contacting the NotificationConsumer) to resolve any policy-related > > inquiries. > > > > NotificationProducer MAY choose to communicate its caching policy by > > some means not specified in this document, such as using a policy > > assertion. > > > > NotificationProducers MAY advertise their behavior in this situation > > via policy assertions. In the absence of a specific policy assertion, > > Subscribers SHOULD NOT assume any particular behavior on the part of > > the NotificationProducer. > > > > WS-BrokeredNotification: > > > > NotificationBrokers SHOULD advertise, whether through policy > > assertions or other means, what security measures they take. > > > > WS-ReliableExchange TC Charter: > > > > If an above specification [including WS-Policy] is outside of a > > standardization process at the time this TC moves to ratify its > > deliverables, or is not far enough along in the standardization > > process, any normative references to it in the TC output will be > > expressed in an abstract manner, and the incarnation will be left at > > that time as an exercise in interoperability. > > > > WS-Security 2004: > > The following topics are outside the scope of this document: > > ... > > Advertisement and exchange of security policy. > > > >--Pete > >Pete Wenzel <pete@seebeyond.com> > >Senior Architect, SeeBeyond > >Standards & Product Strategy > >+1-626-471-6311 (US-Pacific) > > > >--------------------------------------------------------------------- > >To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that > >generates this mail. You may a link to this group and 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. You may a link to this group and 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. You may a link to this group and 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. You may a link to this group and 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. You may a link to this group and 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. You may a link to this group and 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]