ws-rx message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: RE: [ws-rx] [WS-RX] Issue i0024 - take 2
- From: Christopher B Ferris <chrisfer@us.ibm.com>
- To: ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
- Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 09:08:49 -0400
Ashok,
I'm not convinced that we have a dilemma
at all. IMO, the authors of a policy assertion
have the prerogative to define its semantics
as they see fit. I don't see a requirement
that we need to have a WS-Policy semantic
decoration that indicates whether an
assertion is informational or operational.
Cheers,
Christopher Ferris
STSM, Emerging e-business Industry Architecture
email: chrisfer@us.ibm.com
blog: http://webpages.charter.net/chrisfer/blog.html
phone: +1 508 377 9295
Ashok Malhotra <ashok.malhotra@oracle.com> wrote
on 10/10/2005 07:16:44 PM:
> Correcting typo:
>
> As I see it, we are on the horns of a dilemma,
our charter says we
> must use WS-Policy as is, but
> WS-Policy does not let us define the semantics
of the RM (AND the
> QoS) assertion. We need a
> creative solution to get around this!
>
> All the best, Ashok
>
>
> From: Ashok Malhotra [mailto:ashok.malhotra@oracle.com]
> Sent: Monday, October 10, 2005 3:54 PM
> To: Patil, Sanjay; Yalcinalp, Umit; Christopher B Ferris
> Cc: ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: RE: [ws-rx] [WS-RX] Issue i0024 - take 2
> Hi Sanjay:
> I'm not disagreeing with you but let me explain
how we got to this situation.
>
> At the f2f someone suggested that issue 24 could
be resolved in the
> manner we had resolved
> another issue, I think issue 9, by appealing
to the wsp:
> Usage='Observed' in WS-Policy.
> This seemed right to me and I agreed to suggest
wording. When I
> wrote the wording and
> checked the spec I realized that the wsp:Usage='Observed'
had
> somewhat different semantics than
> what we had discussed and, further, wsp:Usage
had been removed from
> the latest version of WS-Policy.
>
> So now, WS-Policy does not have a mechanism to
distinguish between
> assertions that impact
> message content, such as encryption, and assertions
that do not
> impact message content but are
> useful as properties of the service such as Auditing,
Privacy Policy and RM.
>
> As I see it, we are on the horns of a dilemma,
our charter says we
> must use WS-Policy as is but
> WS-Policy does not let us define the semantics
of the RM (at the
> QoS) assertion. We need a
> creative solution to get around this!
>
> All the best, Ashok
>
>
> From: Patil, Sanjay [mailto:sanjay.patil@sap.com]
> Sent: Monday, October 10, 2005 2:32 PM
> To: ashok.malhotra@oracle.com; Yalcinalp, Umit; Christopher B Ferris
> Cc: ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: RE: [ws-rx] [WS-RX] Issue i0024 - take 2
>
> This discussion seems to be getting into generic
policy framework
> areas and should be carried elsewhere, IMHO.
>
> As far as the issue i024 is concerned, my recollection
is that at
> the Redmond F2F [1] the TC agreed to resolve this issue by adding
> *clarification text* to the specs about the meaning of the term
> "observed" (assuming this term is used for describing the
DA
> assertions, etc.). An AI was opened [2] specifically to track the
> needed clarification.
>
> I am concerned that we may now be expanding the
scope of this issue
> by suggesting normative changes (which is more than *clarification
> text*) that not just affect the WS-RX specifications but they also
> presuppose certain feature enhancements (such as wsp:Informational)
> to other specifications that are outside the scope of this TC.
>
> May I suggest to limit the scope of this AI to
what the TC agreed
> with, that is, add : clarification text on meaning of “observed”
in this spec.
>
> Thanks,
> Sanjay
>
> [1] http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ws-rx/download.
> php/14693/MinutesWSRXF2f-0905.htm#_Toc115510920
> [2] http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ws-
> rx/members/action_item.php?action_item_id=1048
>
>
>
>
> From: Ashok Malhotra [mailto:ashok.malhotra@oracle.com]
> Sent: Monday, Oct 10, 2005 13:34 PM
> To: Yalcinalp, Umit; Christopher B Ferris
> Cc: ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: RE: [ws-rx] [WS-RX] Issue i0024 - take 2
> Hi Umit:
> I think we agree that we need to distinguish
between two kinds of
> assertions: those that impact message content and those that do not
> and merely provide information about the service. If we agree,
then this
> distinction will need to be explained somehow.
>
> WS-Policy only discusses assertions that impact
message content.
> Normalization is done to cast the
> policy in a form that distinguishes between policy
alternatives that
> the client can select from or the client and server can match
> constraints and capabilities. Since informational assertions
do not
> participate in client
> selection or client/server policy matching they
do not have to
> participate in normalization.
>
> Also, I don't see how the wsp:Optional attribute
would apply to
> informational assertions.
>
> All the best, Ashok
>
>
> From: Yalcinalp, Umit [mailto:umit.yalcinalp@sap.com]
> Sent: Monday, October 10, 2005 11:23 AM
> To: ashok.malhotra@oracle.com; Christopher B Ferris
> Cc: ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: RE: [ws-rx] [WS-RX] Issue i0024 - take 2
> I am still struggling with why we need an explicit
marker to
> designate informational policies. Can you elaborate what you have
> written below in terms of why informational policies need to be
> treated differently within the WS-Policy framework?
>
> There are two issues: recognizing sth is informational
and treating
> it differently in the framework.
>
> Lets explore the first. In the WS-Policy framework,
the QName of the
> assertion is crucial to designate the type of the assertion. Thus,
> one could also infer that the RM assertion is informational from the
> QName, thus not rendering the presence of such a marker unnecessary
> for designating sth is informational or not.
>
> We are left with the latter problem, whether
the informational
> policy should be treated differently by the WS-Policy framework.
> This is where I have a bit of problem as I am having difficulty in
> understanding why "informational" policies should be treated
> differently (whether it would be for normalization, computing
> alternatives, etc). IMO, after you compute the alternatives, the
> assertions whether they are informational or not should apply. Even
> if a policy may not affect the message content "explicitly",
this
> does not mean that it would not be in effect if it is declared for
a
> policy subject. If it is not possible to "quarantee" that
an
> informational policy is in effect by just inspecting the "message
> content", this does not change the fact which assertion applies
to a
> specific set of alternates, does it?
>
> Therefore, I need your help to illustrate why
you regard this kind
> of policy to be different and should be treated differently within
> the WS-Policy framework. If we don't need it to be treated
> differently, then we can just rely on the QName trick and do not
> need this explicit marker...
>
> Cheers,
>
> --umit
>
>
> From: Ashok Malhotra [mailto:ashok.malhotra@oracle.com]
> Sent: Sunday, Oct 09, 2005 2:04 PM
> To: Christopher B Ferris
> Cc: ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: RE: [ws-rx] [WS-RX] Issue i0024 - take 2
> Yes, it was. But we need some mechanism
to distinguish between
> assertions that impact the message
> content, such as encryption, versus assertions
that merely provide
> information about messages such as
> auditing or reliable messaging. This is
important because the
> former require message processing and
> possibly validating that the assertion has been
applied while the
> latter do not. Thus, clients and servers
> treat these two kinds of messages quite differently.
> All the best, Ashok
>
>
> From: Christopher B Ferris [mailto:chrisfer@us.ibm.com]
> Sent: Saturday, October 08, 2005 5:38 PM
> To: ashok.malhotra@oracle.com
> Cc: ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: Re: [ws-rx] [WS-RX] Issue i0024 - take 2
>
> Ashok,
>
> The wsp:Usage attribute was removed from the WS-Policy spec [1] when
> it was last published in Sept 2004.
>
> [1] http://www.ibm.
> com/developerworks/webservices/library/specification/ws-polfram/
>
> Cheers,
>
> Christopher Ferris
> STSM, Emerging e-business Industry Architecture
> email: chrisfer@us.ibm.com
> blog: http://webpages.charter.net/chrisfer/blog.html
> phone: +1 508 377 9295
>
> Ashok Malhotra <ashok.malhotra@oracle.com> wrote on 10/08/2005
04:27:25 PM:
>
> > Anish pointed out that the wording I had suggested for i0024
was in
> > the non-normative example.
> > In the attached file I have added wording to the normative section
> > 2.2 that explains
> > the RM assertion. The added wording says that the wsp:Usage
> > attribute must be used
> > when the assertion is included in a policy and explains the semantic
> > of this indication.
> > I've set the value of this attribute to 'Informational' rather
than
> > 'Observed', as
> > we discussed, to avoid possible confusion with earlier semantics
> of Observed.
> >
> > The new text is in highlighted.
> >
> > All the best, Ashok
> >
> >
> > [attachment "Issue24.pdf" deleted by Christopher B
Ferris/Waltham/IBM]
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]