[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [ws-sx] WS-Policy and WS-Trust
Who says we can't be dependent on that? We are dependent on the spec after all? -Greg On 3/8/07 5:42 PM, "Michael McIntosh" <mikemci@us.ibm.com> wrote: > "Ashok Malhotra" <ashok.malhotra@oracle.com> wrote on 03/08/2007 04:55:16 > PM: > >> For the record, the WS-Policy charter says that they will go into CR >> in March. This was just completed. The plan is to go to PR in July and > then >> to recommendation. Clearly, these are estimates but so far the WG >> has done well and followed the timeline. >> >> So, if we want to wait for PR, we have to wait 4 months. > > That is the plan, but who is to say that someone won't come along at the > last minute and vote against it? We can't be dependent on that. > >> >> All the best, Ashok >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Tony Gullotta [mailto:tony.gullotta@soa.com] >>> Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2007 12:55 PM >>> To: Greg Whitehead; Michael McIntosh >>> Cc: Anthony Nadalin; ws-sx >>> Subject: RE: [ws-sx] WS-Policy and WS-Trust >>> >>> Ok. So I know this is ugly, may not be allowed, and most likely > everyone >>> will hate it but I'll throw it out there. Can we host that version of >>> the ws-policy xsd along with the ws-sx xsds and just change the >>> schemaLocation attribute so consumers would pull that version of the >>> ws-policy xsd? Does that require a formal submission? >>> >>> We are locked in on that version so we won't get any fixes to issues >>> that may be raised but I think that's ok. >>> >>> Tony >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Greg Whitehead [mailto:greg.whitehead@hp.com] >>> Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2007 12:28 PM >>> To: Tony Gullotta; Michael McIntosh >>> Cc: Anthony Nadalin; ws-sx >>> Subject: Re: [ws-sx] WS-Policy and WS-Trust >>> >>> As stated below, my concerns with referencing the member submission at >>> W3C >>> are: >>> >>> 1) Is that a stable reference? Does W3C keep member submissions around >>> and publicly accessible in perpetuity? >>> >>> 2) What is the errata process for a member submission at W3C? Is the >>> WS-Policy working group going to respond to issues with that document > or >>> manage errata? >>> >>> I guess another question is: >>> >>> 3) What is the IPR policy for a member submission at W3C (as compared > to >>> what the IPR policy will be on the final output of the WS-Policy > working >>> group)? >>> >>> -Greg >>> >>> On 3/8/07 9:55 AM, "Tony Gullotta" <tony.gullotta@soa.com> wrote: >>> >>>> I don't think 1) is good considering the input of the ws-policy >>>> representatives on the call. If they don't feel like ws-policy is >>>> close to completion, we shouldn't wait for it. >>>> >>>> 3) might be ok for ws-trust, but it won't work for > ws-securitypolicy. >>>> >>>> I agree with what you are saying in principal for 2. I'm not sure > why >>>> we need to "submit" that spec to OASIS though. By referencing it in >>>> our spec's and by approving our spec's, isn't that enough? When you >>>> approve ws-trust or ws-securitypolicy, you are approving the use of >>>> that ws-policy spec already. >>>> >>>> Tony >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Greg Whitehead [mailto:greg.whitehead@hp.com] >>>> Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2007 12:35 AM >>>> To: Michael McIntosh >>>> Cc: Anthony Nadalin; ws-sx >>>> Subject: Re: [ws-sx] WS-Policy and WS-Trust >>>> >>>> I realize it's painful to be having this discussion at this late > stage >>> >>>> in the process, but the fact of the matter is that the process is >>>> there to ensure the quality of the work that this TC produces. >>>> >>>> I, for one, had lost track of this issue and I share the concern >>>> raised with the no vote about having a normative reference in an > Oasis >>> >>>> spec to another spec that is not itself the final product of Oasis > or >>>> any other standards body. Is there even any precedent for this in >>> Oasis? >>>> >>>> My concerns are largely practical: where will people go to obtain > the >>>> authoritative copy of the version of the WS-Policy spec that we are >>>> referencing? Who will manage errata for that version of the > WS-Policy >>>> spec if we discover problems down the road? >>>> >>>> I think there are several responsible options: >>>> >>>> 1) Wait for W3C to finalize WS-Policy and reference that final >>> version. >>>> >>>> 2) Solicit the submission of the version of WS-Policy that we are >>>> referencing to Oasis WSSX and vote it to CS along with our specs. >>>> We're implicitly doing this anyway by including a normative > reference >>> to it. >>>> >>>> 3) Copy the schema for wsp:AppliesTo into WS-Trust (as > wst:AppliesTo) >>>> and drop the references to wsp:Policy and wsp:PolicyReference until >>>> W3C finalizes WS-Policy, at which time we can come out with a new >>>> version of WS-Trust that adds them back. >>>> >>>> -Greg >>>> >>>> On 3/7/07 6:23 PM, "Michael McIntosh" <mikemci@us.ibm.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> I think its clear that the intended effect of the commented out > part >>>>> of the WS-Trust schema is to match with what the specification >>>>> describes in text. >>>>> It was commented to avoid an overly strict interpretation of > ordering >>> >>>>> of elements. >>>>> It is also clear that, for any hope of interoperability, message >>>>> producer and message consumer must use/expect same namespace. >>>>> We cannot include a vague reference to an undefined WS-Policy >>>>> namespace - or implementions will not be interoperable. >>>>> We cannot change to a new namespace and in good faith claim to have >>>>> demonstrated interoperability. >>>>> If we decide to change now to the latest WS-Policy draft - what do > we >>> >>>>> do when by the time we get around to last day of next member vote >>>>> WS-Policy's latest draft has changed again? >>>>> We cannot continue this cycle until WS-Policy completes its work - > we >>> >>>>> should put stake in ground now with what we have proven works now > and >>> >>>>> revise later when WS-Policy reaches closure. >>>>> Members of this TC were aware of or should have been aware of this >>>>> issue all along, one no vote by non-participant member on issue > that >>>>> was discussed and addressed in the TC should not cause TC >>>>> dramatically >>>> >>>>> change its plans and schedule for delivery. >>>>> >>>>> Regards, >>>>> Mike >>>>> >>>>> Greg Whitehead <greg.whitehead@hp.com> wrote on 03/07/2007 06:00:32 >>>> PM: >>>>> >>>>>> If you look more carefully you?ll notice that the wsp namespace >>>>>> declaration is not used (outside of comments), so it has no impact >>>>>> on >>>> >>>>>> the schema. >>>>>> >>>>>> -Greg >>>>>> >>>>>> On 3/7/07 4:39 PM, "Anthony Nadalin" <drsecure@us.ibm.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> I just looked at the schema on the web site and I show it there >>>>>> ----------------- >>>>>> Sent from my BlackBerry Handheld. >>>>>> >>>>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>>>> From: Greg Whitehead [greg.whitehead@hp.com] >>>>>> Sent: 03/07/2007 03:36 PM >>>>>> To: Anthony Nadalin >>>>>> Cc: ws-sx <ws-sx@lists.oasis-open.org> >>>>>> Subject: Re: [ws-sx] WS-Policy and WS-Trust >>>>>> >>>>>> As I said before, there is no wsp:Policy element declared in the > WS- >>> >>>>>> Trust schema file (the only mention of wsp:Policy is in a > comment). >>>>>> The content model of RST and RSTR is xs:any. >>>>>> >>>>>> -Greg >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 3/7/07 4:32 PM, "Anthony Nadalin" <drsecure@us.ibm.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> In the namespace declaration to resolve the wsp:Policy element >>>>>> ----------------- >>>>>> Sent from my BlackBerry Handheld. >>>>>> >>>>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>>>> From: Greg Whitehead [greg.whitehead@hp.com] >>>>>> Sent: 03/07/2007 03:24 PM >>>>>> To: Anthony Nadalin >>>>>> Cc: ws-sx <ws-sx@lists.oasis-open.org> >>>>>> Subject: Re: [ws-sx] WS-Policy and WS-Trust >>>>>> >>>>>> Perhaps you can point to where it is expressed in the schema. I >>>>>> certainly don?t see it. >>>>>> >>>>>> -Greg >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 3/7/07 4:22 PM, "Anthony Nadalin" <drsecure@us.ibm.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> They are expressed in the schema so I'm not following your claim > as >>>>>> it has to resolve the scheama use of wsp:Policy >>>>>> ----------------- >>>>>> Sent from my BlackBerry Handheld. >>>>>> >>>>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>>>> From: Greg Whitehead [greg.whitehead@hp.com] >>>>>> Sent: 03/07/2007 03:13 PM >>>>>> To: Anthony Nadalin >>>>>> Cc: <ws-sx@lists.oasis-open.org> >>>>>> Subject: Re: [ws-sx] WS-Policy and WS-Trust >>>>>> >>>>>> I?m just saying that the only normative reference to the WS-Policy >>>>>> namespace, or even that wsp:Policy is legal content in an RST, is > in >>> >>>>>> the text of the spec. >>>>>> >>>>>> On the call today it was claimed that these dependencies were >>>>>> expressed in the WS-Trust schema and that doesn?t seem to be the >>>> case. >>>>>> >>>>>> -Greg >>>>>> >>>>>> On 3/7/07 1:55 PM, "Anthony Nadalin" <drsecure@us.ibm.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> I don't think that is quite the case, we need a normative > reference >>>>>> to resolve wsp:Policy, so where are we to find this, so the > binding >>>>>> is normative now as an explicit namespace is used >>>>>> >>>>>> Anthony Nadalin | Work 512.838.0085 | Cell 512.289.4122 [image >>>>>> removed] Greg Whitehead <greg.whitehead@hp.com> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Greg Whitehead <greg.whitehead@hp.com> 03/07/2007 12:01 PM [image >>>>>> removed] To [image removed] <ws-sx@lists.oasis-open.org> [image >>>>>> removed] cc [image removed] [image removed] Subject [image > removed] >>>>>> [ws-sx] WS-Policy and WS-Trust [image removed] [image removed] I >>>>>> just >>>> >>>>>> took a look at ws-trust-1.3.xsd and the content model for RST and >>>>>> RSTR is already <xs:any> (the wsp namespace is declared in the xsd >>>>>> file, >>>>> but >>>>>> it is ONLY used in comments). >>>>>> >>>>>> So, for what it's worth, the only binding to a particular version > of >>> >>>>>> WS-Policy is in the normative text of the spec. >>>>>> >>>>>> -Greg >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]