I have thought about the "testing" of the examples in the WS-SX Examples|
document, especially since actually re-running the old WS-Security
and other Interop scenarios is likely to be prohibitively expensive in
of required resources.
The way I see it is that the messages in the WS-SX Examples document
have already been tested since by and large they are simply copies of
the messages from the old Interop documents.
What is new here is the matching of the WS-SP policies against those
messages, which to a large degree is an exercise in manually examining
the WS-SP Policy vs the message contents, which is what is done in
the text portions of each example.
Therefore, imo, "testing" of these examples really is reviewing the
themselves for accuracy and then reviewing the text describing the
between the Policies and the covered message.
Of course, the accuracy of the xml for the Policies is important as
and this is where the current test results appear to be focused.
I think having the total focus on the XML parsing of the Policies, while
important, is not really addressing the real intent of the document.
The value of the document, imo, is showing people how to "do WS-SP"
for use cases that are likely to already to exist and need to be
to these emerging standards for advertising those services.
Anthony Nadalin wrote:
What I see is a document that has not been tested or validated for
correctness, I would rather have correctness then more explanation on
something that is potentially wrong.Members have also invested time in
trying to test this document. I can't imagine writing this document w/o
the ability to test it.
Anthony Nadalin | Work 512.838.0085 | Cell 512.289.4122
Most of the examples are actually
based on interop documents (e.g. from WS-I, WSS TC, WCF Plugfests). If
not already implicitly or explicitly included, I don't see any reason
why we should not also add certain scenarios from the interop document.
The issue I see with taking
forward the interop document is that there is only very limited
explanation given on the scenarios and most of them don't include the
corresponding policy at all. The TC asked for adding these detailled
explanations to the SP examples document, along with message samples,
in a call earlier this year. Members invested their time in updating
the document accordingly and reviewing it. Therefore, I think the
example document should be considered as the base document for taking
forward, not the interop documents.
From: Anthony Nadalin [mailto:email@example.com]
Sent: Mittwoch, 13. Juni 2007 05:00
To: Prateek Mishra
Subject: Re: [ws-sx] Further discussion
on WS-SX Examples document
1) I would not call WS-SecurityPolicy complex, I would call
WS-Security, WS-Trust and other specifications that actually define
protocols complex. WS-SecurityPolicy merely defines URIs that expresses
specific wire format for WS-Trust, WS-Security and
WS-SecureConversation. We actually have examples already, these are in
the interop document, these are real examples that work and have been
validated. We have major concern over what is in the examples document
as to not being validated and examples that can actually achieve
I don't see any mention of a examples document in the charter as an
output document, It seems it was important to change the charter to
include the WS-Policy 1.5, I would think that it would also be as
important to make sure the charter actually reflects the TC work.
So I don't think that the question on in scope is ill-posed at all. As
we have published WS-Security, WS-Trust and WS-SecureConversation w/o a
examples document, seems lost of TC do this, ones that actually produce
examples documents actually test the samples.
2) I don't believe that the document has been
reviewed extensively or we would not have found the issues we have
found so far, once again this document has not been validated or tested
for actual correctness or interop. As people that read a formal
document produced by at TC expect the document to be correct and tested.
3) Disagree, I think that this document needs to be
validated and that we can actually use and interop on the examples.
I find the request to take this document to CD
status as we don't even take our interop documents to CD status and
these are documents that have been validated for correctness and
interoperability, seems like these are the documents that we should be
Anthony Nadalin | Work 512.838.0085 | Cell 512.289.4122
This message responds to the following questions from the May 30
conference call minutes:
1. Is an examples document in scope of the TC?
2. What specific examples are or are not in scope in an examples
3. What additional work or steps are required before the examples
doc can progress to CD?
1. The starting point of the examples document goes back to May 2006
this work was proposed by Ashok Malhotra. The points made then were
SecurityPolicy specification is quite complext (111 pages in its final
and that most people would have a difficult time figuring out even
simple example policies.
The idea was to collect examples with explanations, this would provide
starting point for many scenarios of interest.
I think the question of whether such a document is "in scope" is
A more appropriate question would be: is it appropriate to publish a
complex standard like
SecurityPolicy without an examples document?
The examples are needed as a kind of sanity-test so that we can see how
features may be used to secure message exchanges in a few cases of
interest to the TC.
Aside from the educational and labor-saving aspects, it is also a
indication of openness in that
readers need not purchase proprietary products in order to understand
the use of
the SecurityPolicy specification.
Finally, if we look at comparable specifications like
W3C XML Schema we find them accompanied by a systematic and detailed
2. The examples document has been quite extensively reviewed by many TC
and many suggestions for change have been made and implemented.
If any vendor has a specific concern with a particular example, they
should explain what this is
and I am sure the Editors would update the document appropriately.
3. I believe that as soon as any remaining open issues are resolved, we
should conduct a
CD vote for the document.