IRC log of ws-policy on 2007-05-23
Timestamps are in UTC.
- 13:00:04 [RRSAgent]
- RRSAgent has joined #ws-policy
- 13:00:04 [RRSAgent]
- logging to http://www.w3.org/2007/05/23-ws-policy-irc
- 13:00:24 [fsasaki]
- meeting: WS Policy WG (May 2007 f2f, day 1)
- 13:00:39 [fsasaki]
- chair: Chris
- 13:00:51 [fsasaki]
- agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007May/0255.html
- 13:01:36 [cferris]
- cferris has joined #ws-policy
- 13:03:17 [Fabian]
- zakim, who is on the phone?
- 13:03:17 [Zakim]
- On the phone I see Fabian, ArnaudM, Chris_Ferris, Plh, Charlton, Prasad_Yendluri, Frederick_Hirsch, monica, Tom_Rutt, Yakov_Sverdlov, asir, Ashok_Malhotra, Maryann,
- 13:03:20 [Zakim]
- ... Sergey_Beryozkin, Dale_Moberg, +1.415.402.aaaa, David_Orchard, GlenD, Toufic_Boubez
- 13:03:21 [Zakim]
- asir has Paul
- 13:03:34 [prasad]
- prasad has joined #ws-policy
- 13:04:09 [maryann]
- maryann has joined #ws-policy
- 13:04:10 [whenry]
- whenry has joined #ws-policy
- 13:04:38 [cferris]
- test
- 13:04:38 [whenry]
- We've got darth vader on the line
- 13:04:46 [cferris]
- zakim, who is here?
- 13:04:46 [Zakim]
- On the phone I see Fabian, ArnaudM, Chris_Ferris, Plh, Charlton, Prasad_Yendluri, Frederick_Hirsch, monica, Tom_Rutt, Yakov_Sverdlov, asir, Ashok_Malhotra, Maryann,
- 13:04:49 [Zakim]
- ... Sergey_Beryozkin, Dale_Moberg, +1.415.402.aaaa, David_Orchard, GlenD, Toufic_Boubez
- 13:04:50 [Zakim]
- asir has Paul
- 13:04:51 [Zakim]
- On IRC I see whenry, maryann, prasad, cferris, RRSAgent, fsasaki, Fabian, Zakim, trackbot
- 13:04:58 [asir]
- asir has joined #ws-policy
- 13:05:01 [TRutt__]
- TRutt__ has joined #ws-policy
- 13:05:02 [charlton]
- charlton has joined #ws-policy
- 13:06:20 [cferris]
- is anyone on IRC expecting to be able to dial into the call?
- 13:06:36 [Fabian]
- yes!
- 13:06:54 [charlton]
- yes
- 13:07:06 [charlton]
- just joined the call
- 13:07:25 [whenry]
- I'm in ... but all I hear is Darth Vader every so often.
- 13:07:31 [cferris]
- lol
- 13:07:37 [charlton]
- :-)
- 13:07:55 [cferris]
- we will dial in as soon as Abbie returns and can figure out the secret handshake
- 13:08:19 [charlton]
- zakim, ??P9 is charlton
- 13:08:19 [Zakim]
- I already had ??P9 as ??P9, charlton
- 13:08:25 [charlton]
- :-S
- 13:08:35 [charlton]
- zakim, ??P6 is charlton
- 13:08:35 [Zakim]
- I already had ??P6 as ??P6, charlton
- 13:08:37 [whenry]
- So i'ts not Darth Vader ... just some droid called P9 ... got it!
- 13:08:53 [charlton]
- attack of the droids
- 13:08:58 [dmoberg]
- dmoberg has joined #ws-policy
- 13:09:35 [cferris]
- scribe: DaveO
- 13:09:42 [monica]
- monica has joined #ws-policy
- 13:10:16 [dorchard]
- dorchard has joined #ws-policy
- 13:10:21 [Fabian]
- zakim, who is making noise?
- 13:10:21 [Zakim]
- Fabian, sorry, something's wrong; I couldn't match the conference name
- 13:10:36 [cferris]
- RESOLUTION: minutes from 5/16 approved as posted
- 13:10:38 [dorchard]
- scribe: dorchard
- 13:10:41 [cferris]
- rrsagent, where am i?
- 13:10:41 [RRSAgent]
- See http://www.w3.org/2007/05/23-ws-policy-irc#T13-10-41
- 13:10:43 [dorchard]
- scribenick: dorchard
- 13:10:58 [fsasaki]
- rrsagent, make log member
- 13:11:20 [charlton]
- zakim, ?P6 is charlton
- 13:11:20 [Zakim]
- sorry, charlton, I do not recognize a party named '?P6'
- 13:11:27 [whenry]
- I got a 403 error when I tried that Link above
- 13:11:27 [charlton]
- zakim, who is on the call?
- 13:11:27 [Zakim]
- On the phone I see Fabian, ArnaudM, Chris_Ferris, Plh, Charlton, Prasad_Yendluri, Frederick_Hirsch, monica, Tom_Rutt, Yakov_Sverdlov, asir, Ashok_Malhotra, Maryann,
- 13:11:31 [Zakim]
- ... Sergey_Beryozkin, Dale_Moberg, +1.415.402.aaaa, David_Orchard, GlenD, Toufic_Boubez
- 13:11:32 [Zakim]
- asir has Paul
- 13:11:51 [maryann]
- thank you william
- 13:11:53 [fsasaki]
- topic: future meetings
- 13:12:01 [maryann]
- (we;re talking about the F2F)
- 13:12:47 [Ashok]
- Ashok has joined #ws-policy
- 13:12:59 [fsasaki]
- http://www.w3.org/2007/07/ws-policy-f2f-logistics.html f2f in Ireland, hosted by Iona
- 13:13:29 [whenry]
- Go ahead talk about me behind my back ! ;-)
- 13:13:37 [dorchard]
- almost everybody present here will be present at next f2f
- 13:13:47 [whenry]
- Excellent!
- 13:14:20 [whenry]
- Charlton, Fabian, William there too!
- 13:14:40 [dorchard]
- Thursday will be discussion on follow on f2f
- 13:14:46 [dorchard]
- topic: editors report
- 13:14:49 [cferris]
- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007May/0249.html
- 13:14:57 [dorchard]
- sent off the guidelines doc last week, primer the week before.
- 13:15:49 [fsasaki]
- dorchard: one action was not completed
- 13:15:53 [fsasaki]
- chris: on the agenda
- 13:15:58 [dorchard]
- topic: AI review
- 13:16:32 [dorchard]
- 279 review: have on their agenda a 2nd lc of wsa metadata
- 13:17:23 [whenry]
- Peaceful ..
- 13:17:32 [fsasaki]
- regrets+ Yakov
- 13:18:04 [dorchard]
- AI 286: maryann will have BOF table @ lunch today.
- 13:18:36 [Fabian]
- The microphones are picking up several people speaking
- 13:19:14 [fsasaki]
- zakim, this is WS_Policy(F2F)
- 13:19:14 [Zakim]
- fsasaki, this was WS_Policy()12:00PM
- 13:19:15 [Zakim]
- ok, fsasaki; that matches WS_Policy(F2F)9:00AM
- 13:20:13 [Fabian]
- uncertain identities :-)
- 13:20:30 [dorchard]
- topic: Agenda item 7
- 13:20:33 [dorchard]
- AI 290
- 13:20:45 [whenry]
- zakim, William_Henry is really whenry
- 13:20:45 [Zakim]
- +whenry; got it
- 13:21:37 [PaulC]
- PaulC has joined #ws-policy
- 13:22:06 [charlton]
- zakim, aaaa is Nortel-Ottawa
- 13:22:06 [Zakim]
- +Nortel-Ottawa; got it
- 13:22:29 [cferris]
- RESOLUTION: issue 4522 closed with resolution proposed in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007May/0051.html
- 13:22:35 [cferris]
- rrsagent, where am i?
- 13:22:35 [RRSAgent]
- See http://www.w3.org/2007/05/23-ws-policy-irc#T13-22-35
- 13:24:18 [monica]
- monica has joined #ws-policy
- 13:25:23 [dorchard]
- Bug 4567
- 13:26:43 [dorchard]
- 4572 suggests it should be lowercase..
- 13:27:26 [PaulC]
- 4567 and 4572 proposal: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007May/0265.html
- 13:28:21 [cferris]
- RESOLUTION: issues 4567 and 4572 closed with proposed resolution in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007May/0265.html
- 13:28:25 [cferris]
- rrsagent, where am i?
- 13:28:25 [RRSAgent]
- See http://www.w3.org/2007/05/23-ws-policy-irc#T13-28-25
- 13:28:53 [dorchard]
- Bug 4568: latest namespaces
- 13:29:40 [cferris]
- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007May/0266.html
- 13:30:20 [cferris]
- RESOLUTION: issue 4568 closed with proposal in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007May/0266.html
- 13:30:26 [cferris]
- rrsagent, where am i?
- 13:30:26 [RRSAgent]
- See http://www.w3.org/2007/05/23-ws-policy-irc#T13-30-26
- 13:31:06 [dorchard]
- Bug 4571: QNames/NCNames
- 13:31:27 [cferris]
- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007May/0233.html
- 13:31:45 [cferris]
- RESOLUTION: issue 4571 closed with proposal in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007May/0233.html
- 13:31:49 [cferris]
- rrsagent, where am i?
- 13:31:49 [RRSAgent]
- See http://www.w3.org/2007/05/23-ws-policy-irc#T13-31-49
- 13:32:12 [dorchard]
- Bug 4575:
- 13:32:39 [cferris]
- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007May/0258.html
- 13:33:34 [cferris]
- RESOLUTION: issue 4575 closed with proposal in the submitted issue http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007May/0258.html
- 13:34:02 [cferris]
- rrsagent, where am i?
- 13:34:02 [RRSAgent]
- See http://www.w3.org/2007/05/23-ws-policy-irc#T13-34-02
- 13:34:55 [monica]
- monica has joined #ws-policy
- 13:35:55 [dorchard]
- paulc: how will all the changes get in?
- 13:36:11 [dorchard]
- paulc/chris: could editors do in real-time?
- 13:36:37 [dorchard]
- asir: seems like impls have already done the "right thing" wrt these fixes
- 13:37:41 [cferris]
- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007May/0009.html
- 13:37:50 [dorchard]
- topic: are nested policy assertions part of vocabulary?
- 13:40:08 [dorchard]
- related to scalability issue..
- 13:40:14 [dmoberg]
- dmoberg has left #ws-policy
- 13:41:21 [dorchard]
- cferris: who agrees with ashok that Dan's answer is correct wrt to what it says, but would prefer that the policies intersect.
- 13:41:36 [dorchard]
- cferris: ashok, dave
- 13:41:45 [monica]
- pong
- 13:41:52 [dorchard]
- dale: at the framework level or domain
- 13:42:03 [dorchard]
- all: at the framework level.
- 13:43:08 [dorchard]
- related 4561, can domain processing "opt-in" to intersection
- 13:43:36 [TRutt__]
- q+
- 13:43:59 [dorchard]
- cferris: if we went with the approach that the framework always intersects, which opposite of current
- 13:45:24 [dorchard]
- monica: are there cases in other domains that would take advantage of such matching?
- 13:45:32 [cferris]
- ack cf
- 13:45:46 [cferris]
- ack
- 13:45:50 [cferris]
- ack asir
- 13:46:01 [dorchard]
- monica: did other domains make a mistake assuming absence would match?
- 13:46:04 [cferris]
- ack tr
- 13:46:12 [dorchard]
- tom: seek stability
- 13:47:02 [dorchard]
- tom: ws-a does not want to rely on domain specific processing
- 13:47:21 [dorchard]
- tom: want stability, but could live with it IF we had done it before CR.
- 13:47:23 [dorchard]
- q+
- 13:47:26 [cferris]
- ack do
- 13:47:35 [Fabian]
- there is only one domain that introduced and uses nested policies. we should make sure we do what WS-SecurityPolicy requires.
- 13:47:58 [fsasaki]
- dorchard: problem I have: ws-addressing comes with something, others come with other requirements
- 13:48:00 [charlton]
- indeed
- 13:48:15 [fsasaki]
- .. there is no way to learn from ws-addressing implementation
- 13:48:17 [Fabian]
- q+
- 13:48:27 [TRutt__]
- q+
- 13:48:28 [abbie]
- abbie has joined #ws-policy
- 13:48:35 [monica]
- q+
- 13:48:37 [fsasaki]
- .. ws-addressing, ws-security ends up to have to do the same kind of workaround
- 13:48:46 [fsasaki]
- ashok: and we don't fix it
- 13:48:58 [fsasaki]
- paulc: you go back to WD and it will be done in 6 months
- 13:49:02 [dorchard]
- paulc: we could go back to WG and then take 6 months
- 13:49:15 [TRutt__]
- q-
- 13:49:39 [dorchard]
- cferris: who cannot live with the status quo?
- 13:50:00 [Fabian]
- can live with status quo, can not live with Dan's interpretation
- 13:50:00 [dorchard]
- cferris: on question 1
- 13:50:08 [dorchard]
- no hands
- 13:50:44 [cferris]
- ack fab
- 13:51:16 [dorchard]
- q+
- 13:51:29 [dorchard]
- fabian: we need to coordinate with ws-security policy
- 13:51:43 [dorchard]
- fabian: probably if we did the right thing for ws-security policy, we cover all the cases
- 13:52:02 [dorchard]
- fabian: we introduced nested policy for ws-securitypolicy
- 13:52:10 [fsasaki]
- ack no
- 13:52:15 [Ashok]
- q+
- 13:52:25 [cferris]
- ack mon
- 13:52:37 [PaulC]
- no hands
- 13:52:40 [cferris]
- q+ monica
- 13:52:42 [charlton]
- can live with status quo
- 13:52:44 [PaulC]
- ack no
- 13:52:51 [cferris]
- ack mon
- 13:52:52 [PaulC]
- pbc hand
- 13:53:03 [cferris]
- raise hand
- 13:53:14 [cferris]
- ack cf
- 13:53:17 [monica]
- raise hand
- 13:53:31 [cferris]
- ack do
- 13:53:34 [dorchard]
- we have now learned that "xyz hand" is long form
- 13:53:55 [fsasaki]
- dorchard: runtime protocol specs said they will not wait for ws-policy
- 13:54:08 [fsasaki]
- .. "we will not rely on the CR version of the spec", like RM
- 13:54:15 [fsasaki]
- tRutt: rm does both
- 13:54:47 [fsasaki]
- dorchard: so policy is of the hook, they decided not to wait
- 13:55:04 [fsasaki]
- .. that gives us some room from a scheduling perspective
- 13:55:24 [PaulC]
- q+
- 13:55:30 [fsasaki]
- q+
- 13:55:33 [cferris]
- ack ash
- 13:55:44 [dorchard]
- cferris: except ws-addressing
- 13:56:07 [dorchard]
- ashok: what would happen to ws-security policy asked by fabian
- 13:56:15 [dmoberg]
- dmoberg has joined #ws-policy
- 13:56:19 [asir]
- q+
- 13:56:21 [dorchard]
- ashok: if we adopt this, it would become easier to use securitypolicy
- 13:56:46 [dorchard]
- ashok: could say <x509></x509> would match with all the myriad variations.
- 13:56:59 [dorchard]
- ashok: make life much much easier
- 13:57:00 [dorchard]
- q?
- 13:57:04 [Fabian-Test]
- Fabian-Test has joined #ws-policy
- 13:57:14 [monica]
- monica has joined #ws-policy
- 13:57:46 [dorchard]
- paulc: refutes ashok, assumes they wouldn't add anything under x509
- 13:58:39 [cferris]
- q+
- 13:58:41 [monica]
- monica has joined #ws-policy
- 13:59:01 [dorchard]
- paulc: if they revved security policy after policy revved, then there would be a problem
- 13:59:09 [dorchard]
- q+ to follow up on paul's rebuttal
- 13:59:14 [cferris]
- ack mon
- 13:59:24 [dorchard]
- monica: we have that condition anyways
- 13:59:40 [dorchard]
- paulc: if I explicitly state what I support, then I'm robust.
- 13:59:59 [dorchard]
- paulc: if I then do wildcards, then somebody can add something new
- 14:00:05 [cferris]
- ack pa
- 14:00:05 [maryann]
- q+
- 14:00:24 [dorchard]
- paulc: if you go look at ws-securitypolicy, they point to 1.5
- 14:00:44 [PaulC]
- SP: http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ws-sx/download.php/23821/ws-securitypolicy-1.2-spec-cs.pdf
- 14:00:46 [fsasaki]
- q+ monica
- 14:01:04 [whenry]
- regrets, I must drop off for another call. Will be back afterward.
- 14:01:09 [fsasaki]
- queue = monica, fsasaki, asir, cferris, dorchard, maryann
- 14:01:13 [Zakim]
- -whenry
- 14:01:23 [dorchard]
- lines 171 to 173
- 14:01:54 [fsasaki]
- ack moni
- 14:02:34 [dorchard]
- monica: if we look at a nested policy expression, ... look at definitions
- 14:03:21 [dorchard]
- q+ to ask how ws-sp uses policy 1.5
- 14:03:26 [maryann]
- since a nested assertion ( according to our definition) means that the behavior qualifies a parent assertion
- 14:03:59 [maryann]
- then at some level the "empty" does imply a certain level of behavior since the parent or root is expressing some behavior
- 14:04:33 [dorchard]
- monica: have to ask whether nesting is exclusive or additive?
- 14:04:36 [cferris]
- ack fs
- 14:04:38 [PaulC]
- q+
- 14:04:58 [Nadalin]
- Nadalin has joined #ws-policy
- 14:05:09 [dorchard]
- felix: this would create versioning problems, and problems with proposal from ws-addressing
- 14:05:17 [cferris]
- ack as
- 14:05:17 [maryann]
- the nested could be additive behavior rather than exclusive behavior that might conflict if you tried to match an empty with a specific sub-assertion
- 14:05:30 [dorchard]
- asir: go back to ashok's point that wildcard wouldn't break security policy
- 14:05:52 [Nadalin]
- yes it would break SP
- 14:06:16 [asir]
- Bottom of Section 3.9 http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-ws-policy-primer-20070330/#nested-policy-expressions
- 14:06:23 [maryann]
- i think it depends on the assertion
- 14:06:54 [Nadalin]
- it would break anyone use of assertions
- 14:06:58 [maryann]
- and the fact that these assertions were designed with an assumption about how the algorithm currently works
- 14:07:25 [dorchard]
- asir: brings up httpstoken with parameters
- 14:07:33 [prasad]
- Yes in general we cannot guarentee that a nested one would always match empty. In some cases it would and some cases it may not. Depends on the specific case
- 14:07:38 [dorchard]
- ashok: no, that's domain specific.
- 14:08:00 [dorchard]
- asir: if you have a nested policy, then it indicates any behaviour.
- 14:08:15 [monica]
- monica has joined #ws-policy
- 14:08:26 [dorchard]
- asir: this is hard to imagine an app that supports all options
- 14:09:02 [cferris]
- ack cf
- 14:10:05 [dorchard]
- cferris: don't buy the argument that if I added new extension then I'd get a false positive.
- 14:11:21 [dorchard]
- cferris: in the case if I had all the options (ie security policy) then compare all those
- 14:12:05 [dorchard]
- cferris: vs letting subsequent behaviour figure out cipher suite..
- 14:12:25 [dorchard]
- cferris: had we gone that direction, it might not have been that bad.
- 14:12:32 [cferris]
- ack do
- 14:12:32 [Zakim]
- dorchard, you wanted to follow up on paul's rebuttal and to ask how ws-sp uses policy 1.5
- 14:13:14 [fsasaki]
- dorchard: paulc was arguing against the wildcard proposal based on ws-security policy does
- 14:13:54 [fsasaki]
- paulc: I looked at the ws-sx spec, you statement was wrong
- 14:14:00 [PaulC]
- Charter text: Web Services Policy should remain compatible with existing policy assertions and offer a smooth migration path for these assertions (where applicable). Existing policy assertions (in specifications that have been submitted to other standards groups) are Web Services Reliable Messaging Policy, Web Services Security Policy, Web Services Atomic Transaction, and Web Services Business Activity Framework.
- 14:14:02 [Ashok]
- q+
- 14:14:09 [fsasaki]
- dorchard: am I talking against an implementation or a WG?
- 14:14:18 [monica]
- q+
- 14:14:19 [fsasaki]
- paulc: reply is citation from charter text above
- 14:15:04 [fsasaki]
- paulc: dorchard said "other TCs have gone ahead without policy, so we can do what the want". That is not true
- 14:15:21 [fsasaki]
- .. ws-sx will reference also the CR version of policy
- 14:15:37 [fsasaki]
- dorchard: how will security policy use policy?
- 14:16:05 [fsasaki]
- .. what will the impact of the change be to security policy? It will break their current work, but they might benefit in the future
- 14:16:25 [fsasaki]
- .. what is the compatibility issue?
- 14:16:33 [fsasaki]
- paulc: go back to WD, change the NS
- 14:16:49 [fsasaki]
- dorchard: they have a reference, but how is policy used?
- 14:16:56 [fsasaki]
- q+
- 14:17:04 [asir]
- q+
- 14:17:25 [fsasaki]
- maryann: it is more than just a reference, it is deep in the spec
- 14:17:34 [fsasaki]
- asir: it is a normative depdendecy
- 14:18:27 [dorchard]
- q+ to ask about how they break.
- 14:18:32 [fsasaki]
- ack mary
- 14:18:36 [cferris]
- ack mar
- 14:18:50 [PaulC]
- ack Paulc
- 14:19:08 [PaulC]
- I supplied my comment above in the Charter text.
- 14:19:47 [cferris]
- we are breaking for 20 mins
- 14:19:50 [cferris]
- ---------------------
- 14:20:43 [Zakim]
- -charlton
- 14:21:09 [Fabian]
- Charlton, seems like you got the P6 and P9 wrong :-)
- 14:21:17 [Fabian]
- zakim, who is on the phone
- 14:21:17 [Zakim]
- I don't understand 'who is on the phone', Fabian
- 14:21:24 [Fabian]
- zakim, who is on the phone?
- 14:21:24 [Zakim]
- On the phone I see Fabian, Nortel-Ottawa
- 14:21:49 [Fabian]
- zakim, Fabian is charlton
- 14:21:49 [Zakim]
- +charlton; got it
- 14:21:59 [Fabian]
- zakim, who is on the phone?
- 14:21:59 [Zakim]
- On the phone I see charlton, Nortel-Ottawa
- 14:27:14 [Dug]
- Dug has joined #ws-policy
- 14:27:45 [Dug]
- http://www.soaphub.org/interop/status/WSPolicyInteropStatus (pwd: wspolicy)
- 14:32:57 [maryann]
- <break conversation for posterity> there are issues for security policy, when a service takes the option of wildcarding...the use case for the customer side is easier to illustrate.
- 14:33:47 [maryann]
- when the service is the one doing wildcarding it becomes very difficult with all the extensibility points in security & security policy, to understand what the service is willing to do....
- 14:35:28 [maryann]
- in some sense it would be asserting it could do "anything" that the customer would have in its own policy, and it would be difficult to see how this range of options would be determined, assessesed for interoperability
- 14:35:56 [maryann]
- the customer "could" extend with tokens, that the service was not aware of
- 14:36:37 [maryann]
- there would need to be more constraints on these extensiblity points
- 14:42:45 [cferris]
- zakim, who is here?
- 14:42:46 [Zakim]
- On the phone I see charlton, Nortel-Ottawa
- 14:42:46 [Zakim]
- On IRC I see Dug, monica, Nadalin, dmoberg, abbie, PaulC, Ashok, dorchard, charlton, TRutt__, asir, whenry, maryann, prasad, cferris, RRSAgent, fsasaki, Fabian, Zakim, trackbot
- 14:43:40 [Zakim]
- +??P6
- 14:43:53 [cferris]
- zakim, ??P6 is Fabian
- 14:43:53 [Zakim]
- +Fabian; got it
- 14:47:48 [dorchard]
- q?
- 14:47:55 [prasad]
- q+
- 14:49:14 [dorchard]
- bug 4558 is related..
- 14:49:20 [fsasaki]
- continuing meeting
- 14:49:41 [dorchard]
- cferris: dispose this, then get back to 4558.
- 14:50:26 [TRutt__]
- q+
- 14:50:34 [dorchard]
- cferris: we have consensus that Dan's message has described the spec.
- 14:52:18 [dorchard]
- q-
- 14:52:29 [cferris]
- ack ash
- 14:52:40 [fsasaki]
- Ashok: not technical points, but about the process
- 14:52:53 [dorchard]
- ashok: security policy agreed to refer to policy 1.2 and policy 1.5
- 14:53:00 [fsasaki]
- .. Paul mentioned that security policy agreed to refer to policy 1.5
- 14:53:01 [dorchard]
- ashok: not whole story
- 14:54:00 [dorchard]
- ashok: they also have charter to change policy reference(s) (1.2 and 1.5 CR) to policy 1.5 rec
- 14:54:47 [dorchard]
- paulc: are you inferring that they were expecting 1.5 ns to change?
- 14:55:30 [dorchard]
- This is a draft document and may be updated, replaced or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to cite this document as other than work in progress.
- 14:55:56 [cferris]
- paul, concerned that were we to place the /ne/ namespace in jeopardy, that the sx, et al tcs might change their direction
- 14:56:51 [dorchard]
- ashok: 2nd point, tired of the stick "you really want to make this change, it'll go back 6 months"
- 14:56:56 [dorchard]
- ashok: if we have to go back, then ok.
- 14:57:06 [dorchard]
- ashok: let's not use this to stop discussion
- 14:57:27 [dorchard]
- cferris: trying to finish this agenda item..
- 14:58:22 [dorchard]
- cferris: for those left in the queue, I'd like to close this agenda item.
- 14:59:12 [dorchard]
- ... do any of you have concerns related to this thread that are not captured by 4558 or 4560 or 4544
- 14:59:40 [dorchard]
- asir: what is disposition of this is the example?
- 15:00:16 [fsasaki]
- q-
- 15:00:25 [dorchard]
- q?
- 15:00:28 [cferris]
- ack mon
- 15:00:36 [dorchard]
- q?
- 15:00:40 [cferris]
- ack mon
- 15:00:43 [dorchard]
- ack monica
- 15:00:44 [cferris]
- ack monica
- 15:01:14 [cferris]
- ack asir
- 15:01:18 [cferris]
- ack prasad
- 15:02:12 [dorchard]
- prasad: leaving default behaviour as is, and give assertion authors chance to over-ride in domain specific
- 15:02:17 [dorchard]
- cferris: 4561
- 15:02:21 [TRutt__]
- Empty as wildcard has problems for nested policy, it woujld be better to define a standard wildcard, which can be put into scope for parent policy for which wildcarding is appropriate for matching. I believe wildcarding is not approporated for all assertions which have nested policy assertion types This could be addressed in v.next
- 15:02:26 [cferris]
- ack trutt
- 15:04:15 [dorchard]
- cferris: asir, please open issue wrt need better example of empty nested policy item.
- 15:04:39 [cferris]
- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007May/0210.html
- 15:05:54 [asir]
- New issue is http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=4577
- 15:08:08 [cferris]
- RESOLUTION: issue 4577 closed with proposal in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007May/0210.html amended to change 'default' to 'framework'
- 15:08:15 [cferris]
- rrsagent, where am i?
- 15:08:15 [RRSAgent]
- See http://www.w3.org/2007/05/23-ws-policy-irc#T15-08-15
- 15:09:08 [dorchard]
- topic: 4544 policy vocabulary will not be applied
- 15:09:10 [dorchard]
- q+
- 15:10:23 [ArnaudM]
- ArnaudM has joined #ws-policy
- 15:10:56 [dorchard]
- paulc: how will we proceed?
- 15:11:28 [dorchard]
- paulc: what are people's favourite items to talk about?
- 15:11:41 [dorchard]
- paulc: perhaps each person talk about what they think is most important.
- 15:12:11 [dorchard]
- paulc: heard a suggestion from ashok that dorchard's taxonomy be the starting point.
- 15:13:45 [prasad]
- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007May/0264.html
- 15:13:56 [fsasaki]
- (now discussing mail from dorchard above)
- 15:14:20 [fsasaki]
- dorchard: tried to describe actual differences between 4 positions I see
- 15:14:44 [fsasaki]
- .. in terms of requester / and provider and "pseudo set theory"
- 15:15:19 [fsasaki]
- .. I had a single scenario to describe the differences
- 15:17:24 [fsasaki]
- (dorchard describes the mail, agreement that the mail is correct until "Strict intersection yields no intersection.")
- 15:17:47 [fsasaki]
- now discussing the part starting "There is a policy <Z/> ..."
- 15:18:08 [fsasaki]
- cferris: there are two flavors of that: talking about assertion vs. behavior
- 15:18:24 [fsasaki]
- dorchard: let's talk about assertions only now
- 15:18:27 [fsasaki]
- cferris: ok
- 15:20:03 [fsasaki]
- dorchard: nobody is proponent for 1. about "2. AIN Closed world flavour : "
- 15:20:14 [fsasaki]
- asir: nobody advocates 2 now
- 15:20:17 [fsasaki]
- cferris: agree
- 15:20:42 [fsasaki]
- .. IBM never advocated 2
- 15:21:25 [fsasaki]
- paul: let's skip history and get through analisys
- 15:21:35 [TRutt__]
- q+
- 15:21:49 [fsasaki]
- dorchard: +1. (now going through option 3/4)
- 15:22:13 [fsasaki]
- TRutt: is "client" and "behavior initiator" the same?
- 15:22:21 [fsasaki]
- dorchard: for the purpose of this yes
- 15:23:19 [fsasaki]
- ashok: question on 3: one use case: both provider and requester have published policies
- 15:23:45 [fsasaki]
- dorchard: the scope here is the simplist possible case, somebody starts an HTTP connection and picks up stuff
- 15:24:39 [fsasaki]
- ashok: (starts to ask question on 3)
- 15:24:47 [TRutt__]
- q-
- 15:24:48 [fsasaki]
- paul: hold the question, answer will come
- 15:24:53 [fsasaki]
- ack do
- 15:25:03 [fsasaki]
- dorchard: now about the table
- 15:26:31 [cferris]
- q+
- 15:26:46 [fsasaki]
- maryann: why the "will" column?
- 15:26:53 [fsasaki]
- dorchard: client has an intersection result and it will do a,b. It is not a "MUST" because of the intersection
- 15:26:56 [Zakim]
- +whenry
- 15:27:00 [fsasaki]
- paul: so this is for the lax intersection case
- 15:27:08 [fsasaki]
- dorchard: yes, for strict case the table is boring
- 15:28:05 [fsasaki]
- .. will or will not is about the intersection, must and "must not" are about both requester and provider
- 15:28:27 [fsasaki]
- .. so will and will not is about the requester only
- 15:29:56 [fsasaki]
- paul: everybody agrees with the "will" column?
- 15:30:00 [Zakim]
- +Charlton_Barreto
- 15:30:06 [fsasaki]
- ashok: is the will column about requester and provider?
- 15:30:13 [fsasaki]
- paul: david said that
- 15:30:23 [fsasaki]
- cferris: I think will column applies to both
- 15:30:35 [Zakim]
- -charlton
- 15:31:13 [asir]
- q+
- 15:31:31 [fsasaki]
- s/will column/"will" column/
- 15:37:42 [fsasaki]
- (discussion on the restructuring of the column currently done by cferris)
- 15:43:30 [fsasaki]
- cferris: important to see "who initiates the behavior?" that is different than requester / provider
- 15:43:51 [fsasaki]
- .. I am only constraining the initator
- 15:44:17 [fsasaki]
- dorchard: I don't agree
- 15:45:08 [fsasaki]
- .. in a single interaction, a provider behaves as a response
- 15:45:30 [ArnaudM]
- ArnaudM has joined #ws-policy
- 15:45:34 [fsasaki]
- cferris: I am not constraining the behavior of a response
- 15:45:37 [whenry]
- But how do you really feel?
- 15:46:15 [maryann]
- there is a bit of a passionate discussion happening live
- 15:46:27 [maryann]
- for those of you remote, we ask your tolerance
- 15:46:44 [fsasaki]
- (problems of following the discussion for remote participants, paulc says nothing we can do about that in the current discussion)
- 15:46:45 [monica]
- q+
- 15:46:45 [maryann]
- and we will try to capture the discussion in the scribed text
- 15:46:55 [whenry]
- May need to change the rating to "R" ;-)
- 15:47:49 [fsasaki]
- dorchard: what are the behaviors in the follow up of an interaction?
- 15:48:03 [fsasaki]
- paulc: cferris says the interaction does not constrain the provider
- 15:48:19 [maryann]
- chris does not believe that the intersected alternative constrains the provider behavior
- 15:48:47 [maryann]
- david seems to have a different view of the behaviors for either party
- 15:50:08 [maryann]
- david had tried to reduce the behaviors to a common set and chris feels the distinction is relevant and hence the reduction loses some characterization of behaviors thats important to capture
- 15:50:22 [fsasaki]
- dorchard: in the policy framework, there is no constraint on the provider whether it must do D (from cferris perspective)
- 15:51:00 [fsasaki]
- cferris: in the policy framework , there is no mechanism to tell which alternative I choose
- 15:51:56 [fsasaki]
- .. I'm trying to make a statement in the spec to make clear: if I know what an assertion means in terms of its behavior, and it is not in the alternative selected, it will not be applied
- 15:55:10 [fsasaki]
- paulc summarizes:
- 15:56:10 [fsasaki]
- paulc: requestor will exibit a,b,c and must not do E. Z,Y,C,D are out of scope
- 15:56:42 [fsasaki]
- (proposal is not on IRC)
- 15:57:21 [fsasaki]
- paulc: using intersection means "there is an entity that initiates the intersection", in cferris proposal
- 15:57:36 [fsasaki]
- .. if messages are going in the other direction, roles are changed
- 15:58:17 [prasad]
- ashoh hand
- 16:00:27 [fsasaki]
- ack ash
- 16:01:36 [fsasaki]
- ashok: I have a policy and do a policy intersection. What I must no do is: the behaviors which are in my policy included
- 16:01:41 [fsasaki]
- cferris: correct
- 16:02:17 [fsasaki]
- paulc: you do not the things which are in your policy, not talking about the other guy
- 16:03:19 [dorchard]
- q?
- 16:03:21 [dorchard]
- q+
- 16:03:31 [Zakim]
- +whenry.a
- 16:05:47 [fsasaki]
- paulc: would ashok be happy with the words which asir proposed at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007May/0259.html ?
- 16:05:59 [fsasaki]
- ashok: yes, but with what we have now , we might reword them again
- 16:06:29 [Zakim]
- -whenry
- 16:06:52 [fsasaki]
- paulc: cferris, are you fine with what we have now?
- 16:07:17 [fsasaki]
- cferris: vocabulary based AIN was subtly different. Now we are constraining what you know
- 16:08:26 [fsasaki]
- paulc: two tasked over lunch: 1) take cferris proposal with Asirs text: would that make ashok happy?
- 16:08:51 [fsasaki]
- .. and 2) request from dorchard to look more at open world proposal, and 3) from monica
- 16:09:15 [fsasaki]
- .. some editorial items
- 16:09:25 [fsasaki]
- monica: already in the mail archive
- 16:10:05 [fsasaki]
- .. what we have now on the screen should go to the primer
- 16:11:25 [Zakim]
- -Fabian
- 16:11:58 [Zakim]
- -Charlton_Barreto
- 16:14:26 [cferris]
- we are taking a lunch break... back at 1:00 pm ET
- 16:15:47 [cferris]
- email that captures the "whiteboard" dicussion this morning: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007May/0269.html
- 16:26:44 [Zakim]
- -whenry.a
- 16:31:24 [Fabian]
- Fabian has joined #ws-policy
- 16:49:08 [Zakim]
- +Dave_Hull
- 16:49:34 [cferris]
- hi david
- 16:49:40 [cferris]
- we will be starting in 15 mins
- 16:55:02 [maryann]
- scribenick: maryann
- 16:55:39 [maryann]
- scribeNick: maryann
- 16:56:02 [maryann]
- scribe: maryann
- 16:57:16 [Zakim]
- +whenry
- 17:02:12 [dhull]
- dhull has joined #ws-policy
- 17:03:05 [Zakim]
- +Charlton_Barreto
- 17:03:14 [maryann]
- just resuming
- 17:03:39 [asir]
- asir has joined #ws-policy
- 17:03:40 [maryann]
- paul needed to leave but will be back
- 17:03:57 [maryann]
- TOPIC: Agenda item 13 David Hull's discussion items
- 17:04:24 [maryann]
- David is here to help us understand what his concerns are
- 17:04:29 [charltonb]
- charltonb has joined #ws-policy
- 17:05:07 [fsasaki]
- topic: David Hull's CR issues discussion
- 17:05:48 [maryann]
- wasn't intending to deal with subtleties, the motivation is to represent some things that came out of the work in WS-Addressing in their attempts to define assertions for the addressing behavior
- 17:07:16 [maryann]
- david - trying to help offer some feedback on reading the policy document, thinks there are some simple ideas that didn't come across
- 17:08:29 [maryann]
- david: some of the behavior you get with bags as a result of intersection is hard to grasp
- 17:08:50 [Zakim]
- -Charlton_Barreto
- 17:09:10 [maryann]
- david: normalizing policy expressions seems to be indirect
- 17:09:30 [daveo]
- daveo has joined #ws-policy
- 17:11:24 [maryann]
- starting with http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007May/0000.html
- 17:11:29 [ArnaudM]
- ArnaudM has joined #ws-policy
- 17:13:22 [cferris]
- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007May/0243.html
- 17:14:03 [maryann]
- takes a long time to get through the material, paul responded that we considered using other ways of expressing the rules, and it is acknowleged that in retrospect you can always see how you could do something different, but not advocating we do that at this time in the process
- 17:15:16 [notlrahc]
- notlrahc has joined #ws-policy
- 17:16:31 [maryann]
- chris: is there a short path that could augment what is there with a simple summary?
- 17:17:05 [maryann]
- david: normal form is just a policy
- 17:17:26 [maryann]
- this could be a simplifying principle
- 17:17:58 [maryann]
- chris: is there openess in the working group to try to create some rules to augment the current text?
- 17:18:10 [charltonb]
- charltonb has joined #ws-policy
- 17:18:45 [maryann]
- more of when the rules apply
- 17:18:59 [maryann]
- is the critical thing that is missing
- 17:19:21 [charltonb]
- charltonb has joined #ws-policy
- 17:19:24 [maryann]
- commutivity applies because policies are unordered
- 17:19:31 [maryann]
- that's not a normalization rule
- 17:20:01 [maryann]
- assciativity applies pretty clearly
- 17:20:15 [PaulC]
- PaulC has joined #ws-policy
- 17:20:23 [maryann]
- distributive would be good to state that its a normalization rule
- 17:20:41 [maryann]
- a sentence or two at the beginning of each rule might help
- 17:20:47 [prasad]
- q?
- 17:21:04 [maryann]
- ashok: think the spec would be better with more formal rules
- 17:21:15 [maryann]
- chris: prescriptive, right?
- 17:21:21 [maryann]
- ashok: yes
- 17:21:26 [cferris]
- ack cf
- 17:21:36 [maryann]
- david: i agree this is formal without being rigorous
- 17:21:41 [cferris]
- ack asir
- 17:21:46 [cferris]
- ack mon
- 17:21:57 [cferris]
- ack do
- 17:22:40 [maryann]
- asir: i heard dave say he wanted an opening statement.
- 17:22:50 [maryann]
- chris:: i'm talking about text to augment
- 17:23:04 [maryann]
- david : more text for motivation and guidance on when these rules apply
- 17:24:07 [maryann]
- david: its kind of there in the examples, but it would be good to pull it our
- 17:24:13 [maryann]
- s/our/out
- 17:24:45 [Levogiro]
- Levogiro has joined #ws-policy
- 17:25:00 [maryann]
- asir: there is a mapping from the normal form to the policy
- 17:25:23 [cferris]
- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007May/0243.html
- 17:25:33 [maryann]
- chris: this is a description of what the normal form is
- 17:25:34 [cferris]
- http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/CR-ws-policy-20070330/#normalization
- 17:25:48 [Levogiro]
- PUTOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOS!!!!
- 17:26:01 [maryann]
- asir: set of axioms are defined
- 17:26:14 [maryann]
- asir: 4.1 states the mapping
- 17:26:27 [maryann]
- ashok: what does that mean?
- 17:26:31 [maryann]
- asir: data model
- 17:26:43 [notlrahc]
- notlrahc has joined #ws-policy
- 17:27:08 [maryann]
- david: map from expression to a policy is first find normal form expressions and here are some normal form rules
- 17:28:01 [maryann]
- david: from a mathematical point of view there are some holes
- 17:28:29 [maryann]
- david: some of the text seems vague
- 17:28:41 [maryann]
- david: its a declarative and axiomatic approach
- 17:28:59 [maryann]
- chris: are you asking for motivation in 4.3.6?
- 17:29:03 [maryann]
- david: yes
- 17:29:37 [maryann]
- david: now that i understand i can go off and craft some specific statements
- 17:29:46 [maryann]
- chris: that's what i was looking for
- 17:30:13 [maryann]
- asir: 4.3.6 has hyperlinks to the axioms
- 17:30:30 [prasad]
- http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/CR-ws-policy-20070330/#normalization
- 17:32:11 [Zakim]
- +Charlton_Barreto
- 17:32:17 [maryann]
- chris: what i would recommend is that if you could come up with some specific statements to give this some motivation, the WG is happy to take a look at that
- 17:32:58 [maryann]
- paul: normal form doesn't have a definition, it points to section 4.1 .....used the hyperlink to show the rules, isn't that what you want
- 17:33:22 [maryann]
- david: i think its all in there someplace, but as a newcomer is its hard to find
- 17:33:39 [maryann]
- paul: its a backward reference so maybe that was wrong
- 17:33:57 [maryann]
- paul: and there is no definition and that phrase is used quite offten
- 17:34:12 [maryann]
- paul: david is asking for a motivation
- 17:34:30 [maryann]
- david: it says the intent is to facilitate interoperability
- 17:34:51 [maryann]
- david: really what it does is ground the mapping from expression to policy
- 17:35:12 [maryann]
- david: section 4.1
- 17:35:24 [maryann]
- where it defines the element
- 17:35:48 [maryann]
- david: not clear that putting out all lines in a normal form makes things simpler
- 17:36:09 [maryann]
- paul: it says should
- 17:36:23 [maryann]
- paul: and if you have a long policy that's a good reason
- 17:37:27 [maryann]
- david: here we're saying that you will have to deal with non-normative expressions, the motivation seems odd
- 17:38:42 [maryann]
- david: i think we've hit most of the points
- 17:38:52 [maryann]
- chris: i think the group understands your concerns
- 17:39:23 [PaulC]
- Consider changing: The following rules are used to transform a compact policy expression into a normal form policy expression:
- 17:39:39 [maryann]
- chris: hopefully if you could express some suggested changes in the form of " please do x, y , z" ...preferably not a chinese menu :-)
- 17:39:41 [PaulC]
- to inlcude a reference to 4.1 for "normal form policy expression"
- 17:40:00 [maryann]
- chirs: WG is willing to entertain improvements
- 17:40:42 [cferris]
- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007May/0007.html
- 17:41:49 [maryann]
- chris: this thread led to the realization that your terms and asirs terms are consistent
- 17:41:50 [PaulC]
- and to include a reference to 4.3 for "compact policy expressions"
- 17:42:05 [maryann]
- david: yes, there was some discussion back and forth
- 17:42:22 [maryann]
- david: so i understand that "a" is different from "a,a"
- 17:42:52 [maryann]
- david: alternatives that come out of intersection are going to be different than alternatives that come in from either side
- 17:42:53 [charltonb]
- zakim, who is on the call?
- 17:42:53 [Zakim]
- On the phone I see Nortel-Ottawa, Dave_Hull, whenry, Charlton_Barreto
- 17:44:24 [maryann]
- david: there is no requirement that a policy be reduced to a policy with only one alternative
- 17:44:52 [maryann]
- david: policies have set semantics and alternatives have bag semantics
- 17:45:18 [TRutt__]
- q+
- 17:45:20 [maryann]
- chris: this is a general issue
- 17:45:37 [maryann]
- david: i think the ambiguity is gone from the text
- 17:46:21 [maryann]
- chris: 4552, policies are sets not bags,
- 17:46:57 [maryann]
- chris: there's a proposal from asir, to add text
- 17:47:11 [maryann]
- david: if that's what you want to say, yes
- 17:47:21 [maryann]
- asir: yes that's what we want to say
- 17:47:53 [fsasaki]
- see mail http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007May/0062.html from asir
- 17:50:26 [maryann]
- paul: the code that needs to know about different parameters is not in our hands
- 17:50:54 [maryann]
- paul: you can't tell at intersection that they are the same
- 17:51:08 [monica]
- q+
- 17:51:22 [maryann]
- davidO: in owl you can say two things are the same
- 17:51:57 [maryann]
- david: you can tell if you have two assertions are spelled exactly the same
- 17:52:07 [maryann]
- david: same infoset
- 17:52:44 [maryann]
- david: doesn't mean same infoset it means same assertion
- 17:53:04 [maryann]
- paul: what benefit do i get from eliminating duplicates?
- 17:54:20 [maryann]
- ashok: the algorithm is that they take the alternatives and they pull out the assertions and they apply the same thing twice, like encryption
- 17:54:42 [asir]
- q+
- 17:54:56 [maryann]
- david: seems like the use case doesn't give the result ( in the primer)
- 17:55:38 [dhull]
- It seems that in most use cases it doesn't matter exactly what result comes back, just that it comes back at all
- 17:55:53 [maryann]
- chris: we're sliding into the weeds......we could argue about whether polcies should be bags or sets of alternatives, i think it only matters that it might be simpler
- 17:56:06 [maryann]
- chris: we have a proposal for a clarification
- 17:56:27 [maryann]
- chris: so david, are you satisfied with that?
- 17:56:31 [maryann]
- david: yes
- 17:57:07 [maryann]
- david: given that the group has discussed this and said they're ok with it, then i'm ok with it
- 17:59:17 [TRutt__]
- q-
- 17:59:53 [maryann]
- davido: there is still an issue around duplicates at the end of intersection
- 17:59:56 [cferris]
- ack mon
- 18:00:22 [maryann]
- monica: section 3.2 says that duplicates must exist
- 18:00:28 [maryann]
- s/must/may
- 18:00:57 [cferris]
- ack as
- 18:01:17 [maryann]
- david: there is a direct testable assertion that should be in the interop tests
- 18:03:40 [cferris]
- RESOLUTION: issue 4552 closed with text in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007May/0062.html placed in Terminology section and referenced (linked) from uses of the term as deemed appropriate by editors
- 18:03:44 [cferris]
- rrsagent, where am i?
- 18:03:44 [RRSAgent]
- See http://www.w3.org/2007/05/23-ws-policy-irc#T18-03-44
- 18:05:29 [cferris]
- RESOLUTION: issue 4556 is closed with proposal offered in issue description
- 18:05:34 [cferris]
- rrsagent, where am i?
- 18:05:34 [RRSAgent]
- See http://www.w3.org/2007/05/23-ws-policy-irc#T18-05-34
- 18:08:47 [cferris]
- If two alternatives are compatible, their intersection is an alternative
- 18:08:47 [cferris]
- containing
- 18:08:47 [cferris]
- all of the occurrances of all of the assertions from each of the alternatives
- 18:08:47 [cferris]
- (i.e., the bag
- 18:08:47 [cferris]
- union of the two).
- 18:10:08 [cferris]
- If two alternatives are compatible, their intersection is an alternative
- 18:10:08 [cferris]
- containing
- 18:10:08 [cferris]
- all of the occurences of all of the assertions in both alternatives
- 18:10:08 [cferris]
- (i.e., the bag
- 18:10:08 [cferris]
- union of the two).
- 18:11:21 [cferris]
- RESOLUTION: issue 4553 closed with the above text modifying the existing text in section 4.5
- 18:11:25 [cferris]
- rrsagent, where am i?
- 18:11:25 [RRSAgent]
- See http://www.w3.org/2007/05/23-ws-policy-irc#T18-11-25
- 18:13:42 [maryann]
- david: 4555- the use of ther term "intersection" was confusing , but the definitions do explain what the group means
- 18:13:55 [maryann]
- david: i might consider "aggregation" or some other term
- 18:14:47 [maryann]
- chris: i do think that our use of the term might introduce confusion, and would it help to have a link to see what we mean and disambiguate it from set intersection
- 18:14:58 [maryann]
- david: some kind of softening might hlep
- 18:15:04 [maryann]
- s/hlep/help
- 18:15:16 [maryann]
- ashok: it would be good if we had an exact word
- 18:15:23 [dhull]
- "pairwise bag union of compatible alternatives"
- 18:15:24 [maryann]
- paul: give us one
- 18:16:40 [maryann]
- paul: i'm trying to make a proposal
- 18:16:43 [dhull]
- "Policy Intersection is an operation, analogous in some ways to set intersection ..."
- 18:16:55 [maryann]
- paul: policy intersection does not appear in the terminology
- 18:17:15 [dhull]
- or "analogous in some cases ..."
- 18:17:35 [maryann]
- ashok: would it be useful to say....and yyy is used for....
- 18:17:42 [maryann]
- paul: that's what it says in 4.5
- 18:18:06 [dhull]
- q+
- 18:18:07 [Zakim]
- -Charlton_Barreto
- 18:18:47 [maryann]
- paul: you could introduce text and links
- 18:19:05 [Zakim]
- +Charlton_Barreto
- 18:19:27 [maryann]
- paul: introduce text in a note....."the use of the term intersection does not imply set semantics:
- 18:20:05 [maryann]
- david: you could say policy intersection ....is analogous to set intersection in some cases....
- 18:20:24 [maryann]
- asir: 3rd sentence in first paragraph
- 18:20:49 [PaulC]
- Org text:
- 18:20:51 [PaulC]
- Intersection is a commutative function that takes two policies and returns a policy.
- 18:20:58 [PaulC]
- New text:
- 18:20:58 [cferris]
- Policy intersection is communtative operation performed on two poilicies that yields a policy that comtains a collection of the compatible policy alternatives. (Note: while policy intersection at times is analagous with set intersection, it does not imply formal set intersection semantics)
- 18:21:56 [fsasaki]
- s/poilicies/policies/
- 18:22:06 [fsasaki]
- s/comtains/contains/
- 18:22:36 [fsasaki]
- s/analagous/analogous/
- 18:22:41 [maryann]
- david: if i had had that term i would have had fewer false assumptions
- 18:22:44 [cferris]
- RESOLUTION: issue 4555 closed with the above definition for policy intersection added to Terminology section
- 18:22:48 [cferris]
- rrsagent, where am i?
- 18:22:48 [RRSAgent]
- See http://www.w3.org/2007/05/23-ws-policy-irc#T18-22-48
- 18:25:31 [maryann]
- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007May/0261.html
- 18:25:57 [maryann]
- chris: there is a proposal from asir that may allow us to close this
- 18:26:13 [maryann]
- AI 4554
- 18:26:58 [fsasaki]
- s/AI/issue/
- 18:27:07 [maryann]
- david's reply http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007May/0268.html
- 18:27:45 [maryann]
- david: if that is what the WG means then it should be stated
- 18:29:07 [maryann]
- ACTION: Paul to make sure that the additional suggestions are not lost for the non-normative docs
- 18:29:07 [trackbot]
- Sorry, amibiguous username (more than one match) - Paul
- 18:29:07 [trackbot]
- Try using a different identifier, such as family name or username (eg. pknight, pcotton2)
- 18:29:39 [cferris]
- RESOLUTION: issue 4554 is closed with the proposal in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007May/0261.html to change the text in the first paragraph in section 4.5
- 18:29:46 [cferris]
- rrsagent, where am i?
- 18:29:46 [RRSAgent]
- See http://www.w3.org/2007/05/23-ws-policy-irc#T18-29-46
- 18:29:59 [fsasaki]
- ACTION: pcotton2 to make sure that the additional suggestions are not lost for the non-normative docs related to issue 4554
- 18:29:59 [trackbot]
- Created ACTION-300 - Make sure that the additional suggestions are not lost for the non-normative docs related to issue 4554 [on Paul Cotton - due 2007-05-30].
- 18:31:43 [maryann]
- asir : this is the issue addressed in4561
- 18:32:14 [maryann]
- s/this/ the last issue from David's mail/
- 18:33:08 [Zakim]
- -Dave_Hull
- 18:33:55 [maryann]
- chris: resuming agenda item from before lunch
- 18:34:01 [daveo]
- q+
- 18:34:06 [fsasaki]
- ack dh
- 18:34:20 [cferris]
- ack daveo
- 18:34:39 [maryann]
- TOPIC: Issue 4544: policy vocabulary, will not be applied, oh my! Chris Ferris (11:00 am ET)
- 18:34:53 [maryann]
- DavidO- would like to explore the open world
- 18:35:28 [maryann]
- DavidO- this proposal is close to the one called "open world"
- 18:35:42 [maryann]
- DavidO- I've had some trouble with the terms
- 18:36:26 [maryann]
- DavidO- so i'd like to run through this on a more complicated message exchange
- 18:37:06 [maryann]
- DavidO- terms initiatior is this protocol or wsdl in message
- 18:38:16 [maryann]
- taking the Open world from the text proposed from David .....must do what is intersected and that's it
- 18:39:01 [maryann]
- ashok: open world says nothing about what you must not do
- 18:39:34 [maryann]
- david o - you said you can't live with this
- 18:40:08 [maryann]
- chris-- the term "optional" means that there are two alternatives, not that the behavior is optional
- 18:40:57 [maryann]
- davido- the requestor says RM optional
- 18:42:06 [maryann]
- chris- its a matter of being precise in the use of the optional
- 18:42:54 [maryann]
- davido- i don't understand the stridency of your position
- 18:43:02 [whenry]
- q?
- 18:43:51 [maryann]
- davido- if the client choses to do something why is this so bad?
- 18:45:13 [whenry]
- Can the speakers speak up please?
- 18:47:17 [monica]
- q+
- 18:47:26 [maryann]
- i'll ask william, sorry
- 18:48:45 [maryann]
- chris =- i'm making a big deal because if i don't use wsp:optional and I only have alternatives, and I am able to just select things to do anyway, then it negates the value of providing explicit alternatives
- 18:49:01 [maryann]
- davidO: under my definition that's fine
- 18:49:32 [maryann]
- dale: why did you put Y under must not? ( to chris)
- 18:49:43 [maryann]
- chris -- no i didn't that's david's option
- 18:49:59 [maryann]
- paul: your point is that optional is a macro
- 18:50:04 [maryann]
- chris: yes
- 18:51:29 [maryann]
- paul: imagine the case you have 16 alternatives
- 18:51:34 [maryann]
- ( to david)
- 18:52:22 [maryann]
- paul: and you get back the one that doesn't have "e" in it, are you expecting that you can go back and if you find "e" is in it you can
- 18:52:50 [maryann]
- davidO: i think its foolish for a client to do that, but its not necessary in the spec to say that
- 18:53:16 [daveo]
- q+ to say chris' point
- 18:53:23 [PaulC]
- ack monica
- 18:53:33 [maryann]
- monica: i'd like to hear from dale, because he raised these issues about open & closed
- 18:54:13 [maryann]
- monica: there was a long dicussion in AT and they had a hard time characterizing their assertions because they didn't know how to represent it
- 18:54:36 [fsasaki]
- s/AT/WS-TX/
- 18:54:51 [maryann]
- davidO: i want to try to champion chris's point of view to prove that i understand it
- 18:55:22 [maryann]
- daveO: the requestor has this policy and there might be a bunch of things that the provider does that it may or may not be able to do
- 18:56:03 [maryann]
- daveO: in intersection, it explicitly asked whether E was a behavior to do
- 18:56:41 [PaulC]
- ack daveo
- 18:56:41 [Zakim]
- daveo, you wanted to say chris' point
- 18:56:56 [maryann]
- daveO: if you add behaviors that you didn't get back in intersection then you are throwing out the value of intersection
- 18:57:34 [maryann]
- monica: they had a conundrum and they came to a point where they only expressed what they were required to do
- 18:57:49 [maryann]
- chris: if you can do what you want, what's the value of policy?
- 18:58:12 [maryann]
- paul: we could define the syntax, but intersection has no value
- 18:58:37 [whenry]
- +1
- 18:58:48 [maryann]
- paul: its a contract, i'm going to get your policy and this is what i'm going to do as a result of that
- 18:59:29 [maryann]
- daveO: I want to see this under a more complicated message exchange pattern, i don't know what an entity that engages in an interaction means
- 18:59:47 [maryann]
- paul: you're going to do that make connection to someone
- 19:00:14 [monica]
- q+
- 19:00:17 [maryann]
- paul: then something comes back....its got to be going to something
- 19:01:15 [maryann]
- chris: you already did from a reliable message connection ....from a web services perspective you already did policy intersection with paul to send them originally
- 19:01:39 [maryann]
- chris: so you know what's going on here
- 19:01:50 [maryann]
- chris: you are the entity engaging in that interaction
- 19:02:35 [maryann]
- chris: conversely, asynchronously, paul;s going to send messages asynchonously and reliably
- 19:03:01 [maryann]
- davidO- when you engage in an interaction, what do you mean?
- 19:03:08 [maryann]
- chris: i have an endpoint
- 19:03:21 [maryann]
- david: what about an endpoint with multiple messages
- 19:03:34 [maryann]
- david: its the first one, that you're engaging in
- 19:03:46 [maryann]
- chris: angels dancing on the end of a pin
- 19:03:58 [maryann]
- chris: you want to know how do i talk to paul
- 19:04:09 [maryann]
- chris: so you go and get his policy
- 19:04:21 [maryann]
- davidO; how does this map to the subjects we define
- 19:04:38 [maryann]
- paul: that's what attachment states
- 19:05:19 [maryann]
- paul: if you have some at one subject or at another subject, that's the one you have to apply the algorithm on that subject
- 19:05:41 [maryann]
- that why we have subject granuarlity in the policy subjects
- 19:06:00 [maryann]
- chris: we would just like to not have subjectivity in what you can do
- 19:06:21 [maryann]
- chris: if we say you can do a or b, we want it to be either a or be
- 19:06:25 [maryann]
- s/be/.b
- 19:06:33 [maryann]
- chris: not that you can do a and b
- 19:06:49 [maryann]
- chris: we want it to have predictability
- 19:07:22 [maryann]
- david O --- why say in the spec MUST not
- 19:07:28 [maryann]
- chris- it doesn't say must not
- 19:11:43 [maryann]
- paul: is the only question about the verb
- 19:12:52 [whenry]
- What text?
- 19:12:58 [maryann]
- paul: straw poll, how many people can live with the text "If an initiating entity includes a policy assertion type A in its policy, and this policy assertion type A does not occur in an intersected policy, then the initiating entity does not apply the behavior implied by assertion type A. If a policy assertion type Z is not included in the policies being intersected then the intersected policy says nothing about the behavior implied by the assertion type Z
- 19:13:08 [maryann]
- (delay for cut and paste)
- 19:13:14 [whenry]
- only reading it now
- 19:13:15 [maryann]
- 5 can
- 19:13:19 [maryann]
- 2 cannot
- 19:13:59 [maryann]
- (editing)
- 19:14:25 [maryann]
- "If an initiating entity includes a policy assertion type A in its policy, and this policy assertion type A does not occur in an intersected policy, then the initiating entity SHOULD not apply the behavior implied by assertion type A. If a policy assertion type Z is not included in the policies being intersected then the intersected policy says nothing about the behavior implied by the assertion type Z."
- 19:14:41 [whenry]
- Can live with the inital text
- 19:15:17 [maryann]
- 6 can
- 19:15:24 [whenry]
- I can live with it
- 19:16:27 [whenry]
- Can live with should not but kinda like first one
- 19:16:55 [maryann]
- P1 -"If an initiating entity includes a policy assertion type A in its policy, and this policy assertion type A does not occur in an intersected policy, then the initiating entity does not apply the behavior implied by assertion type A. If a policy assertion type Z is not included in the policies being intersected then the intersected policy says nothing about the behavior implied by the assertion type Z."
- 19:17:37 [maryann]
- P2- "If an entity includes a policy assertion type A in its policy, and this policy assertion type A does not occur in an intersected policy, then the initiating entity does not apply the behavior implied by assertion type A. If a policy assertion type Z is not included in the policies being intersected then the intersected policy says nothing about the behavior implied by the assertion type Z."
- 19:18:08 [whenry]
- +1 to P2
- 19:18:16 [maryann]
- P3- "If an initiating entity includes a policy assertion type A in its policy, and this policy assertion type A does not occur in an intersected policy, then the initiating entity should not apply the behavior implied by assertion type A. If a policy assertion type Z is not included in the policies being intersected then the intersected policy says nothing about the behavior implied by the assertion type Z."
- 19:19:56 [fsasaki]
- paulc: example : I have always RM in my policy. So even if I get a intersection result that has not RM in it, I will try to do it
- 19:20:16 [fsasaki]
- TRutt: could not live with SHOULD NOT
- 19:21:11 [fsasaki]
- ashok: wants to have a stronger word than "does not", e.g. SHOULD NOT or MUST NOT
- 19:22:01 [fsasaki]
- paulc: ashok does not want the flexibility in the spec. dave wants the flexibility. Tom is between ashok and dave
- 19:22:30 [maryann]
- sure i can take it back felix
- 19:22:58 [maryann]
- paul ( to tom) why did you vote that way?
- 19:23:33 [maryann]
- tom: can we do a vote between 3 & 4
- 19:23:59 [maryann]
- p4 "If an entity includes a policy assertion type A in its policy, and this policy assertion type A does not occur in an intersected policy, then the initiating entity must not apply the behavior implied by assertion type A. If a policy assertion type Z is not included in the policies being intersected then the intersected policy says nothing about the behavior implied by the assertion type Z."
- 19:24:13 [whenry]
- Are there penalties for MUST NOT? What will happen? What's the point. Even if we have a MUST NOT people are open to try the great thing is it won't work.
- 19:24:26 [maryann]
- paul -- preference poll for 2, 3, 4
- 19:24:40 [maryann]
- preference 2 - 0
- 19:24:45 [whenry]
- What's 1,2,3 ?
- 19:24:58 [whenry]
- 1 does not? 2 should not? 3 Must not?
- 19:25:06 [maryann]
- ( p1, p2, p3, p4 above)
- 19:25:39 [maryann]
- preference 3- 7 1/2 or 8
- 19:25:52 [maryann]
- preference 4- 1
- 19:25:53 [whenry]
- I like 2 "does not" better - let the best practices handle the shoulds
- 19:26:39 [maryann]
- paul- strong preference for 3 and no one "can't live" with 3, so this is consensus
- 19:27:26 [maryann]
- monica: is "entity" sufficient?
- 19:27:36 [maryann]
- chris- i need to think about it over break
- 19:28:11 [maryann]
- dave: i like getting rid if initiating because it gets rid of a lot of issues
- 19:29:01 [cferris]
- from the "whiteboard": If an entity includes a policy assertion type A in its policy, and this policy assertion type A does not occur in an intersected policy, then that entity SHOULD NOT apply the behavior implied by assertion type A. If a policy assertion type Z is not included in the policies being intersected then the intersected policy says nothing about the behavior implied by the assertion type Z.
- 19:29:06 [cferris]
- rrsagent, where am i?
- 19:29:06 [RRSAgent]
- See http://www.w3.org/2007/05/23-ws-policy-irc#T19-29-06
- 19:29:48 [cferris]
- note, this link in the log is to the proposal that we have reached consensus on, modulo any "editorial" tweaks
- 19:30:02 [maryann]
- asir: we need to remember that this was only one part of the original proposal
- 19:30:11 [cferris]
- http://www.w3.org/2007/05/23-ws-policy-irc#T19-29-06
- 19:30:49 [Fabian]
- Fabian has joined #ws-policy
- 19:31:04 [maryann]
- <break>
- 19:33:58 [cferris]
- http://maps.google.com/maps?daddr=17+Eleanor+Dr,+Nepean,+ON,+Canada&saddr=3500+Carling+Ave,+Nepean,+ON,+Canada&f=d&sll=45.364584,-75.727365&sspn=0.007448,0.014377&ie=UTF8&z=12&om=1
- 19:35:01 [Zakim]
- -whenry
- 19:36:09 [Zakim]
- -Charlton_Barreto
- 19:37:31 [RRSAgent]
- I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2007/05/23-ws-policy-minutes.html fsasaki
- 19:53:20 [Fabian]
- Fabian has joined #ws-policy
- 19:57:25 [asir]
- Action: Asir to close issues from David Hull
- 19:57:25 [trackbot]
- Created ACTION-301 - Close issues from David Hull [on Asir Vedamuthu - due 2007-05-30].
- 19:58:46 [asir]
- This includes 4552-4556
- 19:59:19 [maryann]
- resuming after break
- 20:01:25 [CGI234]
- CGI234 has joined #ws-policy
- 20:01:28 [maryann]
- TOPIC: 4558 - DaveO's issues with performance
- 20:04:02 [maryann]
- daveO- summarizing issues with wildcarding & issues with security policy
- 20:04:33 [maryann]
- daveO- some new things emerged in the morning session if you were looking at introducing wildcarding at the provider side
- 20:05:10 [maryann]
- daveO- there is a challenge with regard to scalability and ease of authoring
- 20:05:14 [cferris]
- q?
- 20:05:16 [TRutt__]
- q+
- 20:05:20 [cferris]
- ack mon
- 20:06:03 [maryann]
- ashok: i think david raised issues about the performance side, but this is a usefull semantic to express
- 20:06:43 [maryann]
- abbie: wildcarding?
- 20:06:46 [maryann]
- ashok: yes
- 20:07:53 [maryann]
- tom: from ws-addressing perspective the performance issues are not there ( there's only 2) but it may be that not every assertion can use the wildcard feature and we need to think about this more, so it could be a v-next issue
- 20:08:02 [asir]
- q+
- 20:08:08 [cferris]
- ack tr
- 20:08:19 [fsasaki]
- +1 for v.next
- 20:08:20 [prasad]
- +1 to next version. This is not a show stopper
- 20:08:21 [cferris]
- ack as
- 20:08:29 [maryann]
- tom: we need to have a way to express whether or not the wildcarding holds or not
- 20:09:22 [maryann]
- asir: we need some experience with examples, its like an application saying it does anything
- 20:09:47 [maryann]
- asir: if you are worried about malicious behavior, you can use throttles
- 20:10:18 [maryann]
- asir: you can have a limit on the number of alternatives
- 20:10:49 [maryann]
- asir: overloading the existing empty will break existing implementations
- 20:11:03 [CGI234]
- q+ to respond on breaking issue
- 20:11:18 [CGI234]
- ping
- 20:11:19 [cferris]
- ack cgi
- 20:11:19 [Zakim]
- CGI, you wanted to respond on breaking issue
- 20:12:14 [maryann]
- davidO: in the current model i don't think wildcarding breaks implementations
- 20:12:26 [Fabian]
- Fabian has joined #ws-policy
- 20:12:47 [maryann]
- davidO: every spec does not assume wildcarding, they list all the options
- 20:12:56 [asir]
- q+
- 20:13:04 [maryann]
- davidO- seems to me this is a compatible change
- 20:13:12 [cferris]
- ack as
- 20:13:27 [maryann]
- asir: i gave an example, from security policy,
- 20:13:37 [asir]
- From the primer - In another example, WS-Security Policy defines a sp:HttpToken assertion to contain three possible nested elements, sp:HttpBasicAuthentication, sp:HttpDigestAuthentication and sp:RequireClientCertificate. When the HttpToken is used with an empty nested policy in a policy expression by a provider, it will indicate that none of the dependent behaviors namely authentication or client certificate is required. A non-anonymous client who require
- 20:14:13 [maryann]
- daveO-poll.....should we try to fix this now?
- 20:14:56 [maryann]
- daveO- is there anyone else who is interested in solving this now?
- 20:15:03 [maryann]
- exploring solving?
- 20:15:06 [maryann]
- daveO- yes
- 20:15:32 [maryann]
- monica- if we can establish that it won't break existing implementations then we can explore it
- 20:15:44 [maryann]
- tom- asir, it will break implmentations
- 20:16:07 [asir]
- Bottom of Section 2.9 - http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-ws-policy-primer-20070330/#nested-policy-expressions
- 20:17:34 [maryann]
- chris- ashok and dave are the only ones interested in exploring this?
- 20:18:06 [maryann]
- daveO- if its incompatible i'm not sure i'm interested in a change
- 20:18:17 [maryann]
- tom- if you did a new qname for wildcard
- 20:18:40 [maryann]
- tom- this would be a global qname, so i don't see how it could be backward compatible
- 20:19:05 [maryann]
- daveO- i believe the compatability is around assertions,
- 20:19:28 [maryann]
- felix- it(compatability) is about implementations and assertions
- 20:20:16 [fsasaki]
- CR requirements are about (not) breaking existing implementations, adding a new qname would be against that
- 20:20:29 [maryann]
- chris- so we're dong interop now, and lets say we can up with a compatible solution that doesn't break the 1.5 implementations, ..this is just an exploration.....of where we are
- 20:20:38 [charltonb]
- charltonb has joined #ws-policy
- 20:21:13 [maryann]
- chris- we have roughly a month to cross t's dot i's in anticipation of transition to PR in June
- 20:21:46 [CGI234]
- q+ to answer Asir's objection..
- 20:23:27 [dorchard]
- the key is the phrase "is required".
- 20:24:08 [dorchard]
- a non-anonymous client who requires authentication would put their restriction in httpsToken, and then get the right intersection.
- 20:24:41 [maryann]
- chris - we have to each review these changes, deal with any test cases unresolved after this interop....let's asume we get there.....that puts us into PR in July........that requires an AC review...for a month...current course....Sept for PR... if we entertain introducing a new feature...how long would it take to work out a resolution to this?
- 20:24:46 [maryann]
- ashok- couple of weeks
- 20:24:57 [maryann]
- chris- then we're looking at pushing back a month
- 20:25:31 [maryann]
- chris- it pushes us back to last call
- 20:26:37 [maryann]
- ashok- different question....if we start PR process in June..........what will we do in July?
- 20:26:45 [maryann]
- chris- we have primer/ guidelines
- 20:30:19 [dorchard]
- q+ to mention when "customrs" would get wildcarding feature..
- 20:30:26 [dorchard]
- q- CGI
- 20:33:48 [fsasaki]
- ack do
- 20:33:48 [Zakim]
- dorchard, you wanted to mention when "customrs" would get wildcarding feature..
- 20:34:03 [maryann]
- daveO- it will take us 2 years to get a v-next out and my concern is that a 2 month slip is a tradeoff to a 2 year slipbecause we add it with some other features
- 20:34:26 [TRutt__]
- q+
- 20:35:01 [maryann]
- chris- i'm asking does that seem fair, to have a week or two to assess and then move on
- 20:35:13 [maryann]
- daveO- i do think we need to have a proposal on the table
- 20:35:51 [maryann]
- chris- i'm just looking to see if people expect to leave the spec open to do this, or if we are aware of the impact to the current track
- 20:36:22 [maryann]
- asir: implementors have spent a lot of time and it would be hard to get implementors to do anything else
- 20:36:25 [fsasaki]
- q+
- 20:36:28 [TRutt__]
- I only want to change the CR namespace in the PR if there is a change necessary to fix a broken spec, the spec is not broken. The wildcard is an enhancement.
- 20:36:32 [Ashok]
- q+
- 20:36:34 [cferris]
- ack tr
- 20:36:36 [maryann]
- asir- its a myth to think it can be done in 2 months
- 20:36:52 [dorchard]
- q+ to dispute the assertion that it's hard to get implementors to do anything else
- 20:37:03 [maryann]
- tom- i don't want to partition the space, i hope we can do this without versioning the namespace
- 20:37:19 [cferris]
- ack fs
- 20:37:22 [maryann]
- tom- its not broken the way it is
- 20:37:40 [asir]
- q+
- 20:37:57 [maryann]
- felix: it might also involve groups like the WS- addressing
- 20:38:06 [cferris]
- ack ash
- 20:38:26 [maryann]
- ashok- if what's required is that we write a proposal, then i will write one next week
- 20:38:47 [fsasaki]
- q+
- 20:38:57 [maryann]
- chris- the proposal needs to have a solid backing and an understanding of how we get where we want to go
- 20:39:15 [maryann]
- ashok: you might need to retest the intersection algorithm
- 20:39:47 [maryann]
- chris: felix, would adding a feature trigger going back?
- 20:40:02 [maryann]
- felix: yes that should have been done before last call
- 20:40:38 [maryann]
- chris- not going to close the door, lets think about it tonight and look at it again tomorrow
- 20:41:25 [maryann]
- chris: if we have to go back to last call, we'd be adding at least 3 months
- 20:43:02 [maryann]
- chris: we would need to have a plan by June 6
- 20:43:40 [maryann]
- felix: from my experiences and giving people more time, can start a feature creep
- 20:44:15 [maryann]
- abie: we should assess right now whether there is interest
- 20:44:59 [fsasaki]
- s/abie/abbie/
- 20:45:45 [cferris]
- RESOLUTION: issue 4558 closed with no action as v.next
- 20:45:50 [cferris]
- rrsagent, where am i?
- 20:45:50 [RRSAgent]
- See http://www.w3.org/2007/05/23-ws-policy-irc#T20-45-50
- 20:47:08 [maryann]
- TOPIC: 4561
- 20:48:13 [maryann]
- Description: can a domain define domain-specific processing that could state
- 20:48:13 [maryann]
- that empty nested policy IS compatible with non-empty nested policy? If so,
- 20:48:13 [maryann]
- then I believe the spec should indicate with a MAY.
- 20:48:22 [cferris]
- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007May/0253.html
- 20:48:35 [charltonb]
- +1 to MAY
- 20:50:35 [maryann]
- asir: the intersection states that domains can only specify parameters intersection
- 20:50:57 [dorchard]
- q+ to ask why closed extensibility model on domain specific affecting intersection
- 20:51:04 [fsasaki]
- ack fsa
- 20:51:07 [TRutt__]
- q+
- 20:51:58 [maryann]
- monica: there is another sentence .....that says " Because the set of bheaviors indicated tby a policy alternative, depends on the domain specific semantics of the collected assertions, determining whether two policy alternatives are compatible generally involves domain-specific processing."
- 20:52:43 [asir]
- q+
- 20:52:48 [maryann]
- monica: i don't understand why we would say that they CAN NOT
- 20:53:35 [cferris]
- ack do
- 20:53:35 [Zakim]
- dorchard, you wanted to dispute the assertion that it's hard to get implementors to do anything else and to ask why closed extensibility model on domain specific affecting
- 20:53:38 [Zakim]
- ... intersection
- 20:54:02 [maryann]
- daveO: i don't understand why we have this closed domain processing limit on the domain specific processing
- 20:54:07 [fsasaki]
- q+
- 20:54:37 [maryann]
- daveO: i think we will do harm and prevent this item we just put off for v.next if we do this
- 20:54:40 [cferris]
- ack tr
- 20:54:49 [maryann]
- asir: I was explaining what's in section 4.5
- 20:55:50 [maryann]
- asir: to say that two assertions are compatilbe you have to match the qname and the only thing that is delegated is the assertion parameter processing
- 20:56:39 [cferris]
- ack as
- 20:56:47 [cferris]
- q+ ashok
- 20:56:48 [maryann]
- asir: you need to determine if each assertion is compatible, and the key statement is that the only thing that is not covered is parameter processing
- 20:56:49 [dmoberg]
- q+
- 20:56:54 [cferris]
- q+
- 20:57:25 [TRutt__]
- The spec should clarify that the use of domain specific intersection processing requires that it be specified with the assertion type definition, In the lack of any domain specifric processing for intersection in the definition of an assertion type, the default intersection processing applies. If the intersection processor has to have a escape table (based on qname) for assertion types wanting to pull parameters into the algorithm, it costs no more
- 20:57:53 [maryann]
- tom: we need to clarify if they don't put domains specific rules, the framework algorithm apples
- 20:58:06 [asir]
- q+
- 20:58:20 [prasad]
- It only says: "As a first approximation, an algorithm is defined herein that approximates compatibility in a domain-independent manner". That is it only a first approximation?
- 20:58:35 [prasad]
- s/it only/it is only/
- 20:58:41 [dorchard]
- q+ to respond to issue of domain specific processing and performance.
- 20:58:42 [maryann]
- tom: when you pull in domain specific processing you may as well pull in everything......parameters & empty
- 20:58:49 [maryann]
- tom: and the text is ambiguous
- 20:58:59 [cferris]
- ack fs
- 20:59:18 [maryann]
- felix: the spec says the alogrithm is only an approximation, and v.next may be totally independent
- 20:59:30 [maryann]
- felix: so I don't think it breaks v.next
- 20:59:42 [cferris]
- ack ash
- 21:00:52 [TRutt__]
- q+
- 21:00:53 [maryann]
- ashok: asir tlaks about qnames and parameters, but what the spec says before that unless you have domain specific processing, so number one is if you have domain processing, and you can specify whatever you wish, if you don't then you fall back to the approximation
- 21:00:55 [cferris]
- ack dm
- 21:01:06 [fsasaki]
- s/tlaks/talks/
- 21:01:28 [maryann]
- dale: similar to ashok, you can't say categorically that empty can't be interpreted in a domain specific processing, then they can do that
- 21:01:39 [maryann]
- dale: that's what the wording says to me
- 21:02:16 [maryann]
- dale: if a domain specific algorithm is required......then you say that you don't use the approximation, right now it seem s open
- 21:02:46 [monica]
- monica has joined #ws-policy
- 21:03:04 [Ashok]
- q?
- 21:03:08 [monica]
- q+
- 21:03:10 [maryann]
- chris ( chair hat off)
- 21:03:42 [maryann]
- chris: reasonable people are coming to resonably different interpretations which indicates that there is clarification needed
- 21:04:30 [maryann]
- chris: there is no processing model for intersection, there are some steps, there is some prose, and it doesn't say explicitly whether you do domian first or second or part of the framework processing
- 21:05:00 [Zakim]
- disconnecting the lone participant, Nortel-Ottawa, in WS_Policy(F2F)9:00AM
- 21:05:03 [Zakim]
- WS_Policy(F2F)9:00AM has ended
- 21:05:05 [Zakim]
- Attendees were +1.613.765.aaaa, charlton, whenry, Nortel-Ottawa, Fabian, Charlton_Barreto, Dave_Hull
- 21:05:12 [maryann]
- chris: i think with soap we came up with a clear processing model which said, you can do it anyway you want but the behaviior has to be as if .....
- 21:05:17 [maryann]
- anyone on the phone?
- 21:05:26 [cferris]
- zakim, who is on the phone
- 21:05:26 [Zakim]
- I don't understand 'who is on the phone', cferris
- 21:05:35 [cferris]
- zakim, who is on the phone?
- 21:05:35 [Zakim]
- apparently WS_Policy(F2F)9:00AM has ended, cferris
- 21:05:36 [Zakim]
- On IRC I see monica, charltonb, dorchard, ArnaudM, asir, dhull, dmoberg, abbie, Ashok, charlton, TRutt__, whenry, maryann, prasad, cferris, RRSAgent, fsasaki, Zakim, trackbot
- 21:05:57 [maryann]
- chris: we need to clear this text up
- 21:06:03 [RRSAgent]
- I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2007/05/23-ws-policy-minutes.html fsasaki
- 21:06:05 [cferris]
- ack as
- 21:06:08 [maryann]
- asir: clarification is fine
- 21:06:27 [TRutt__]
- if any spec defines an assertion type with domain specific processing, the implementation of that spec has to have a way to "overide" the default processing for that assertion qname. This can be very costly. In fact, an intersection implementation could be designed with a limitation of only doing default processing, and it would work only with policy definitions which rely on the default intersection algorithm In fact, I would ask if there are any
- 21:06:30 [TRutt__]
- q+
- 21:07:05 [maryann]
- asir: section 4.5 is policy intersection
- 21:07:21 [maryann]
- asir: everything is based on qnames
- 21:07:49 [maryann]
- asir: the spec says what is not part of policy intersection
- 21:08:28 [maryann]
- asir: if a domain says its not based solely on qnames then its a different algorithm
- 21:09:16 [maryann]
- chris: how is that different?
- 21:09:33 [dorchard]
- q?
- 21:10:04 [fsasaki]
- q+
- 21:10:18 [maryann]
- daveO: why on earth do we say the domain can say that something falls out of intersection, but not in intersection
- 21:11:07 [maryann]
- daveO- asir, you are saying that if you go through intersection and the qname match says yes, and the domain goes through and says no .......
- 21:11:24 [TRutt__]
- The framework should be clarified that the "domain specific" intersection is limited to processing of elements within the assertion element for a qname (i.e., only pertains to its parameters and nested assertions
- 21:11:33 [dorchard]
- q+ beer
- 21:11:42 [dorchard]
- q- beer
- 21:11:44 [dorchard]
- q+
- 21:11:45 [maryann]
- asir: it says that in the first statement of the intersection
- 21:11:47 [dorchard]
- q+ beer
- 21:12:06 [fsasaki]
- +1 to TRutt
- 21:12:08 [fsasaki]
- q-
- 21:12:16 [maryann]
- tom: the text does not say that anything under a qname is what is considered domain processing
- 21:12:18 [monica]
- q+
- 21:12:22 [TRutt__]
- q-
- 21:13:35 [maryann]
- daveO; this is a performance concern....the way it works it kind of scales because once you match, then you can do a lot of other processing and you know exaclty which domain processing to kick off
- 21:13:37 [fsasaki]
- ack do
- 21:14:39 [maryann]
- daveO: in one case you prune the tree of things that don't match, you know you only have to go into 2 to see if there is any domain processing to override the behavior
- 21:15:20 [dorchard]
- q?
- 21:15:31 [dorchard]
- q+ thaiFfood
- 21:15:36 [dorchard]
- q- thai
- 21:15:40 [fsasaki]
- ack moni
- 21:15:41 [dorchard]
- q+ thaiFood
- 21:15:49 [fsasaki]
- q+ wine
- 21:16:29 [TRutt__]
- TRutt__ has left #ws-policy
- 21:16:37 [maryann]
- monica: if you look at the last paragraph in 4.5 you can have more than one assertion of the same type.... lean toward davids argument to allow domains to specify compatilbility
- 21:17:07 [ArnaudM]
- ArnaudM has left #ws-policy
- 21:17:24 [RRSAgent]
- I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2007/05/23-ws-policy-minutes.html fsasaki
- 21:19:21 [fsasaki]
- adjourned for today
- 21:19:24 [RRSAgent]
- I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2007/05/23-ws-policy-minutes.html fsasaki
- 21:19:40 [Zakim]
- 'restarting to clear state'
- 21:20:07 [charltonb]
- :-)
- 21:20:10 [Zakim]
- restarting in 1 minute