WS Policy WG
25 Apr 2007


See also: IRC log


Bob_Freund, Frederick_Hirsch, Maryann, Sergey_Beryozkin, Mark_Little, Felix, Dale_Moberg, Tom_Rutt, monica, paulc, Fabian, Charlton_Barreto, Yakov_Sverdlov, GlenD, Toufic_Boubez, Prasad_Yendluri, Chris_Ferris, whenry, Asir, Dan, Mark_Temple-Raston, DaveO, Ashok




Agenda http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Apr/0085.html

Review and approval of WG minutes


Fabian regrets recorded by Felix.

<cferris> RESOLUTION: revised minutes approved

RESOLUTION: April 18 minutes adopted as revised.

<cferris> Paul will chair next week, Chris to chair May 9

Editorial team report

<paulc> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Apr/0102.html

<monica> ping

Target for Guidelines May 21

Paulc: Agenda item at f2f ?

Maryann: Yes
... will report status at subsequent meetings

Action item Review

Action 243 on Asir Done

ACTION-275 on Abbie done

ACTION-281 Prasad and Asir to scrutinize the HP results to be marked done

Action 279 in progress (ws-a and ws-policy)

ACTION-282 Asir to open and close new issue on test scenarios done

Action 283, 284, 285, 286 later on agenda

ACTION-283 Cferris done

ACTION-285 Monica on context done

ACTION-286 Maryann in progress

cferris: status recorded

paulc: confirms fixed IP addresses behind firewall.
... public endpoints ok, but otherwise plan to attend. remote client access unlikely to ottawa servers.

Primer Issues

<monica> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Apr/0059.html

paulc: issue 4393 has proposal from glen http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=4393
... glen email plus monica amended included in Charleton message 57 in archive

<paulc> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Apr/0057.html

s/message 57/message 55/

RESOLVED: resolve issue 4393 with http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Apr/0057.html

RESOLUTION: 04 01RESOLVED: resolve issue 4393 with http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Apr/0057.html

paulc: b) Versioning and extensibility in primer needs cleanup
... Maryann on http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=4414

Maryann: Terminology cleanup: authorship roles cleaned up.
... scenario on hypothetical end of life assertion using ignorable attribute is included.

<cferris> frederick: there was a TBD and I suggest first choice

frederick: TBD is to be resolved with first choice

<cferris> ... on page 4

<paulc> ac asir

Frederick language: "policy alternative offered should not contain the EndOfLife policy

assertion even with an ignorable attribute. This is because an

alternative with the EndOfLife assertion with an ignorable attribute

will only intersect with a client operating in strict intersection

mode, IF the client also has an EndOfLife policy assertion."

<paulc> Asir comments:

<paulc> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Apr/0107.html

asir: two items first is When the WG adopted Dave O's proposal [1], WG amended the proposal by adding the adjective 'hypothetical' to all occurrences of the 'EndOfLife assertion'.

maryann: maybe "hypothetical" be included consistently

paulc: item 2 editorial on This sentence comes across as if a client would always intersect with one alternative in a policy as long as the first policy alternative does not contain the hypothetical EOL policy assertion. Suggested editorial change is:

s/alternative in a policy expression/alternative in Company-X policy expression/

Editorial ACTION: Maryann to add in Asir's 2 changes

asir: a seems like the choice

frederick: a the choice

dorchard: a was my choice

maryann: reviews issue (maryann can summarize)

frederick: provides defense of a and will summarize

maryann: an end of life assertion is one where a client can determine when the policy expires...(roughly)

<asir> that is the intent

maryann: if that is so, then policy assertion should be introduced at the outset

<asir> b) is fine .. then we need to adjust subsequent paragraphs

<asir> Dave O suggestion sounds fine

dorchard: perhaps we need to expose the flow of the offering and how it relates to various client reactions

<monica> no

paulc: can the editors fix this?

<monica> +1

asir: one more cut.

<Fabian> +1 on one more cut

<monica> +1 for one more cut (asir was slow on the draw)

<scribe> ACTION: on dorchard, maryann 4414 to be implemented except for paragraphs needing restructuring concerning end of life [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/04/25-ws-policy-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - on

<scribe> ACTION: dorchard, maryann 4414 to be implemented except for paragraphs needing restructuring concerning end of life [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/04/25-ws-policy-minutes.html#action02]

<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - dorchard,

<fsasaki> ACTION: david maryann 4414 to be implemented except for paragraphs needing restructuring concerning end of life [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/04/25-ws-policy-minutes.html#action03]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-287 - Maryann 4414 to be implemented except for paragraphs needing restructuring concerning end of life [on David Orchard - due 2007-05-02].

<cferris> RESOLUTION: resolved to adopt the proposal in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Apr/0052.html without the bit about the TBD which is being reworked by Maryann and DaveO

<toufic> can we go for a record?

<monica> paul, there is a queue.

monica: charlton and monica and glen would like to be informed about dorchard and maryann

<paulc> Monica suggest taking into consideration the adopted text for 4393 during the work on ACTION-287.

(scribe experiencing local interrupts, now back)

paulc: agenda item 8

Which WS-SecurityPolicy version should be used as a reference

Which WS-SecurityPolicy version should be used as a reference

<paulc> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Apr/0096.html

asir: Last week of Feb. I assumed action to make updates. several topics, namespace, align with Sec. policy. Noted that a parameter has been removed so 1 change is needed
... 9 to 10 occurrences with line numbers need update

monica: should we wait until vote is over

paulc: notes s p has passed so far
... can changes be made now?
... (as member) any impact of changes on interop?

asir: already updated

Unanimous consent to resolve issues in 4318

cferris typing resolution

<cferris> RESOLUTION: 4318 resolved with http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Apr/0096.html

Issue 4478

<cferris> RESOLUTION: 4477 closed with http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Apr/0077.html

Any objection to resovle 4477


<cferris> RESOLUTION 4478 closed with http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Apr/0078.html

no objections to 4477 or 4478 resolutions

paulc: asks for input from Bob F and Asir on example indicating how behavior arises from several assertions
... seeks consensus on whether more clarification is needed for this topic

glen: asks whether an easy clarification is available?

paulc: perhaps an action item is needed for writing text?

<scribe> ACTION: asir to amend note in accordance with http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Apr/0081.html [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/04/25-ws-policy-minutes.html#action04]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-288 - Amend note in accordance with http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Apr/0081.html [on Asir Vedamuthu - due 2007-05-02].

<monica> queue please

<monica> queue please

WS-Addressing and its Problems

Action item discussions on 283, 284, 285 and related issues

<maryann> i need to drop off the call for a few minutes, i will try to monitor the chat and respond, my apologies

paulc: Seeks advice on how to untangle these issues for discussion.

cferris: Ashok and my responses are similar explanation.

monica: Action 288 is impacted by current issues.

<asir> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Apr/0106.html

paulc: Action 284 to start

asir: reviews definitions of vocabularies and for nested policy alternatives

Fabian: paulc recommends point be made in email on difficulties with defs on nested p. alternative vocab.

<DaveO> +1 to monica

<monica> thanks david o

monica: context of parent policy assertion should be tracked

cferris: new qualification about directly contained not adequately defined

paulc: suggests that an email argument for that position be developed

<monica> Clarification: The parent policy assertion provides context to a nested policy assertion. The policy assertion is unique when created but has context when nested and qualifies a parent.

<DaveO> I've been wondering about assertions used as nested vs not, and "dual" purpose assertions like that in vocabularies

ashok: If new language is inadequate, then an infoset based definition might be developed

asir: policy reference question is an artifact and is normalized away and it is in that form the def is applied

<DaveO> It seems like we tried to avoid being really rigorous in our data model, and we can't avoid that rigor

monica: an infoset defintion may interact with several other issues

<paulc> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Apr/0105.html

<monica> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Apr/0105.html

<prasad> If we get consensus on the concept of "direct children" I think providing a proper definition is an easier task

monica: presents views on how meaning of nested assertions depends on parent policy assertion and many implications discussed

paulc: ashok and chris on action 283 on vocabulary of intersected policies


DaveO: Policy vocabularies of each policy differ { A B C} not equals {A B D}

<monica> ping

danroth: Dorchard mentioned useful information lost, and asks why he says that

Dorchard: traces impact on not agreeing what negations of policies are present
... Will there be behavioral differences
... Proposes pre-intersected and post-intersected vocabularies, if that proves useful. Need some use cases here.

Fabian: Don't know why client will need to know about server vocabulary

monica: revisits how empty, absence, and vocabulary defs interact

<Fabian> client computes compatibility between server and client policy, will establish which one of its alternatives are compatible

paulc: issue 283 concludes?

<Fabian> one it knows the compatible alternatives, it picks once of the compatible alternatives out of the client policy and applies them. It is not interested in the server policies anymore.

cferris: address briefly removal of does not apply

<cferris> scribe: cferris

dale: watching everyone struggle with the work going on in ws-a wg

<DaveO> Dan, would you say that a client knowing that certain assertion types were not intersected is no different (and thefore not useful) than knowing the policy assertions were never offered?

dale: all this discussion was actually a surprising argument
... tried to figure out how we got here
... the root seems to be the "is not applied"
... didn't think that we had to hold onto that principle
... give assertion authors a negative particle that could be applied consistently
... posing a question... why does the framework need the absence is negation principle
... imposing implications that are uncomfortable to assertion authors
... we are having problem defining vocabulary
... could save some work
... if we jettisoned the negation principle
... you don't need them to explain intersection
... maybe leave to future effort to produce something that provided for explicit negation

<scribe> scribe: dmoberg

Dorchard: Needs to know utility of absence is inapplicable, and find concrete cases of its utility

<Zakim> DaveO, you wanted to respond to Monica

monica: framework generic intent. absence may impinge

Dorchard: if useful across all domains, then it should be in framework.

<monica> cool - thanks bob

monica: ws-addressing did encounter these difficulties about the absence principle

<monica> +1

<monica> to bob

<bob> my comment was 06it should not matter, policy IMO should be evaluated level for level01

tomrutt: wants to note that many problems about the situation of a nested policy alternative

<Ashok> I don't understand why nested policy has only one alternative

<Ashok> Are you saying the you cannot use Optional withing a nested policy?

<asir> am not aware of anyone making that claim

<Ashok> What claim Asir?

cferris: notes that the new asir definitions would possibly prevent application of absence principle (since no other policy alts in canonical form)

<cferris> at the nested level

paulc: address Bob's plea for response by asking working group to respond by email to our list if any changes are needed
... adjourned!

Summary of Action Items

[NEW] ACTION: asir to amend note in accordance with http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Apr/0081.html [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/04/25-ws-policy-minutes.html#action04]
[NEW] ACTION: david maryann 4414 to be implemented except for paragraphs needing restructuring concerning end of life [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/04/25-ws-policy-minutes.html#action03]
[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.128 (CVS log)
$Date: 2007/05/02 16:09:34 $