<scribe> Scribe: Asir S Vedamuthu

<scribe> ScribeNick: asir

<scribe> Meeting: WS-Policy WG Conference Call

<scribe> Chair: Paul Cotton

<mitrepauld> I'll dial in a little later. When do you think you will want talk about my issues (5219, 5220)?

<pbc99> Regret from Yakov, Abbie, Charlton, Tom Rutt, Dale Moberg

1. Roll call and selection of secretary

Asir is the scribe

Scribe for next week is Yakov Sverdlov

2. Review and approval of WG minutes

RESOLUTION: Approved October 17th minutes - http://www.w3.org/2007/10/17

-ws-policy-minutes.html

3. Future WG meetings

We are not meeting in the first week of Nov

Need to figure out what would be on the agenda for next week

4. Editorial team report

Asir is reporting ...

Asir: 5 out of the 7 editorial actions are completed. Toufic owns the

remaining two.

scribe: If the WG were to close all the Last Call issues by today, the

editorial team would complete all edits by Friday Oct 26th and deliver

the final drafts to the WG by Monday Oct 29th.

5. Review action items

cut and paste from agenda

Action 333 - Pending

Action 358 - Done

http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=5218

Action 359 - Done

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Oct/0074.html

Action 360 - Done

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Oct/0068.html

6. Recommendation issues and errata

None

Primer LCWD [was RE: RE: Policy Retrieval Algorithms], Paul

Denning

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-

policy/2007Oct/0055.html

No bugzilla entry yet

Paul Denning introduces the issue/proposal

<pbc99> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Oct/0055.html

PaulD: want to provide some links to how to use UDDI in policy references

<fsasaki> asir: Paul suggested an example, I agreed with the example in a specific section

<pbc99> See http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Oct/0065.html from Asir

<pbc99> a) Proposed a new example in 2.10 from Paul's email

<fsasaki> .. other change suggested by PaulD about retrieval mechanism : I suggested a change in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Oct/0065.html

<fsasaki> .. saying that this is out of scope

<pbc99> b) Modify one sentence and ref 3.6

<pbc99> Paul D asks if there be words linking the example to the text.

PaulD: name is used for inter doc referencing
... but all three mechanisms can be used for inter doc referencing

<fsasaki> asir: I suggested to use PaulD first mail, use the example

<fsasaki> .. and modify the sentence I mentioned. We don't need more details. That should satisfy PaulD's concerns

PaulC: moving text around didn't achieve the goal
... PaulD, does Asir's suggestion resolve your concern?

we are now considering the proposal at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-

policy/2007Oct/0065.html

PaulD: can live with Asir's proposal

<scribe> ACTION: Chris to open a bugzilla entry and record the resolution for PaulD's Primer LCWD [RE: Policy Retrieval [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/10/24-ws-policy-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-361 - Open a bugzilla entry and record the resolution for PaulD\'s Primer LCWD [RE: Policy Retrieval [on Christopher Ferris - due 2007-10-31].

Resolution bits

<pbc99> From message http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Oct/0065.html

<pbc99> The WG agrees to accept the changes proposed by Asir:

<pbc99> a) Add a new example from Paul's proposal to 2.10

<pbc99> b) Add the modified sentence as proposed by Asir and add a forward ref to 3.6

Resolution: resolved the yet to be opened bug using the above resolution (items a and b typed in by Paul C)

5219 - Primer 3.6 Policy Retrieval, Mitre

http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=5219

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Oct/0056.html

There is consensus on the mailing list

PaulC: PaulD, you didn't mention the policy aware client related question, this means we do not need to take any WG level action

RESOLUTION: resolved issue 5219 using the proposal from http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Oct/0056.html

5218 - editorial changes sect 5.7,1, Chris

http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=5218

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Oct/0075.html

Chris: this is about item g) in the list of editorial changes
... we took it offline
... change the current text to comparing policy alternatives and then making a claim about dupes

here is the proposal from last week

s/If there are multiple instances of a policy assertion type in the same

policy alternative without parameters and nested policies, these have the same

meaning as a single assertion of the type within the policy alternative./If

policy assertion authors did not specify the semantics of repetition of policy

assertions of a type that allows neither parameters nor nested policy

expressions within a policy alternative, then repetition is simply redundancy,

and multiple assertions of the assertion type within a policy alternative have

the same meaning as a single assertion of the type within the policy

alternative./

Chris: new proposal focuses on compatibility

Ashok: suppose you have two assertions, say they have compatible nested policies but different parameters
... which one would you remove

Chris: nothing to do with removal

<fsasaki> asir: I don't understand the part about different parameters

<fsasaki> .. if the parameters are different, how can we talk about simple redundancy?

<fsasaki> .. framework does not make claims here, so should we make a claim in the guidelines?

<fsasaki> .. framework talking about redundancy takes parameters into account

<pbc99> test

PaulC: proposals are at loggerheads
... shouldn't introduce any inconsistency in the Guidelines doc

<fsasaki> asir: current proposal from Chris takes into account nested policies

<fsasaki> .. if it would take parameters into account too it would agree with the framework and would be fine

<fsasaki> .. see sec. 3.2 in the framework http://www.w3.org/TR/ws-policy/#rPolicy_Alternative

If policy assertion authors did not specify the semantics of repetition of policy assertions of a type that allows neither parameters nor nested policy expressions within a policy alternative, then repetition is simply redundancy, and multiple assertions of the assertion type within a policy alternative have the same meaning as a single assertion of the type within the policy alternative.

<pbc98> test

<fsasaki> asir: how to handle dublicates is up to the domain, there is an example from security

<fsasaki> .. there is a BP about this already

<fsasaki> .. about the aggregate behavior of multiple assertions

http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-ws-policy-guidelines-20070928/#bp-semantics-multiple-same-type

<fsasaki> .. see BP 22

Chris: unable to see the actual content

Ashok: can you provide an alternate wording

Asir: in the original proposal item g)

<fsasaki> Asir: last week Chris wanted to break the sentence into two and wanted to bring it back

<fsasaki> .. I think that would be good

Paul: summarizes .. Asir wanted to align the sentence with the Framework. But the new proposal goes further

Asir: last week, Chris wanted to split the sentence into two

Chris: thinks that current Guidelines text is incomplete

leaving the issue open

Asir and Chris should talk offline

5189 - Guidelines - BP 19 Lacks Motivation, Asir

http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=5189

Chris' proposal - http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-

policy/2007Oct/0074.html

Chris: were struggling with a point that Asir raised
... you couldn't find the rational or lacks motivation
... believe that there is a subtle point made
... in this e-mail I recasted the BP and rewrote the entire section

<pbc97> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Oct/0074.html

<pbc97> Issue 5189

<fsasaki> asir: reviewed this

<fsasaki> maryann: me too, agree with the proposal

Chris: choice of wording contributed to the confusion
... about an assertion that implies certain behavior that may or may not be applied
... example, asymmetric behavior on the wire
... RM is in the category, MTOM may not be
... MTOM does carry the asymmetric semantics
... depending on the granularity, the context of when that assertion is marked optional, you need to think carefully about where you attach the related assertion

Maryann: agrees

<fsasaki> asir: I'm happy with the proposal Chris sent

Asir: willing to live with it

Take this one to the mailing list .. leaving the issue open

5206 - Guidelines - Ordering of Assertions

http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=5206

Proposal from Asir, Ashok, Chris and Maryann

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Oct/0068.html

<pbc97> We will leave 5189 open until next week.

<fsasaki> asir introduces proposal for 5206

PaulC: are you okay with the proposal

Ashok: okay with the proposal

Chris: okay

Maryann: okay

DaveO is MIA

PaulC: shall we resolve issue 5206 using the proposal in 68

RESOLUTION: resolved issue 5206 using the proposal in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Oct/0068.html

PaulC: thanks to Asir, Ashok, Chris and Maryann for formulating a proposal to resolve this issue

<pbc97> Thanks to the authors of this proposal for making good progress on this issue.

5220 - Expression author versus provider of policy expressions,

Paul Denning

http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=5220

Paul's proposal to answer his question:

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Oct/0063.html

PaulD: asking the WG acknowledge that 1) and 3) are the same in teh list of secondary audience
... proposal is "WS-Policy expression authors who need to understand the syntax of the language and understand how to use the assertions authored by Assertion Authors to build and provide consistent policy expressions

Maryann: these are different roles .. why do you want to combine them?
... am an author of SP .. but am not an admin of a provider

PaulD: what is the diff between the exp author and provider?

Maryann: admin is the provider?

[my 2 cents .. this assumes some deployment model]

PaulD: have a hard time following the distinction

Maryann: I can be an expression author for all of IBM
... define how SP could encapsulate behavior
... may imply a diff role

<fsasaki> asir: I think PaulD understands an assertion author

<fsasaki> .. so somebody writing an expression, e.g. a machine generating a WSDL with policy expression

PaulD: confused by the provider of policy expression

Chris: machine generating a policy expression, say WSDL + policy expressions
... ... but somebody had to think about how the generated artifact relates to config
... when you turn on security on that maps to SP assertion
... whoever decided how to map config to policy expression is an expression author
... provider is not the author

Maryann: ... sp experts defining sp assertions (assertion authors
... bringing together diff assertions into an expression
... assertion authors are the subject matter experts

<fsasaki> asir: introduction contains some confusion about audiences

PaulD: still not quite seeing the distinction

PaulC: guy that makes up the assertions
... people that uses the assertions

we are now considering PaulD's proposal (see mail 63

Maryann reading intro section, Guidelines doc

<pbc97> Current text is:

It is intended to provide non-normative guidelines for WS-Policy Assertion Authors who need to know the features of the language and understand the requirements for describing policy assertions. Some of the guidance for WS-Policy Assertion Authors can also be helpful for:

WS-Policy expression authors who need to understand the syntax of the language and understand how to build consistent policy expressions

Consumers of policy expressions who need to understand the requirements contained in policy assertions

Providers of policy expressions who need to understand how to use the assertions authored by Assertion Authors

Chris: we are putting fine distinction into roles and confusing our readers
... just stick to two class of users

<pbc97> Some of the guidance for WS-Policy Assertion Authors can also be helpful for those who use the policy assertions created by Assertion Authors.

Asir: sounds good

Proposal: collapse the 3 bullets and replace with the text proposed by PaulC (pbc97)
... Some of the guidance for WS-Policy Assertion Authors can also be helpful for those who use the policy assertions created by Assertion Authors.

PaulD: great!

RESOLUTION: resolve issue 5220 using the proposal above

Summary

<scribe> closed 4 issues

5218 and 5189 are open

last agenda item enumerates the call for feedback

Going back to 5189

5189 - Guidelines - BP 19 Lacks Motivation, Asir

<fhirsch> The approach taken by WS-RM Policy [Web Services Reliable Messaging Policy Assertion] is to provide for an RM assertion to be attached at either or both message and endpoint policy subjects. In order to eliminate the ambiguity associated with only using an message policy subject, the WS-RM Policy requires a policy to be attached to an endpoint policy subject as well as a message policy subject whenever a policy is attached to a message policy subject.

<mitrepauld> Do you want me to open a buzilla issue for agenda item 7c, which you can close based on today's resolution? i.e., message thread http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Oct/0055.html ...

<pbc97> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Oct/0074.html

<pbc97> To Paul D: No need to open the issue.

<mitrepauld> ok

this is editorial

Resolution: resolved issue 5189 using the proposal at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-

policy/2007Oct/0074.html

+ Frederick's amendment

Summary

back to summary

<scribe> closed 5 issues

issue 5218 is open

this is a small editing job

PaulC: any suggestions on how to expedite 5218?

<mitrepauld> Relative to UDDI TC, I was a (non-voting) member, but my comments/issues were not a UDDI TC input even though my issues relate to UDDI.

Chris: assuming that we can close issue 5218, we could advance the drafts to WG Note

PaulC: means, we should see the exact text via e-mail
... if the editors could do what they promised then we could have the final drafts next week

<mitrepauld> The UDDI TC is not active and is in a closing state (not yet officially closed), so I would guess that the UDDI TC will not formally respond.

PaulC: ask the editors drafts by next Monday
... we will resolve 5218
... editors may provide a draft with the proposed resolution of 5218
... next week, we will ask the "advance PRimer and Guidelines to WG Note" question
... be prepared

adjourned

Thanks to Paul D

Thanks to Frederick

Thanks to Asir, Maryann, Chris and Ashok