This is an archived snapshot of W3C's public bugzilla bug tracker, decommissioned in April 2019. Please see the home page for more details.
From: public-ws-policy-request@w3.org [mailto:public-ws-policy-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Prasad Yendluri Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2006 4:11 PM To: public-ws-policy@w3.org Subject: NEW ISSUE: Policy Compatibility Check must account for level of N esting of Policy Alternatives Title: Policy Compatibility Check must account for level of Nesting of Policy Alternatives Description: Section 4.4 of the WS-Policy 1.5 Framework specification states: Two policies are compatible if an alternative in one is compatible with an alternative in the other. If two policies are compatible, their intersection is the set of the intersections between all pairs of compatible alternatives, choosing one alternative from each policy. If two policies are not compatible, their intersection has no policy alternatives. However, per section 4.3.2 (Policy Assertion Nesting), a policy Assertion may contain a nested Policy. The intent of the above text is to check compatibility of alternatives at the top level of the subject policies only. There is scope however for interpretation, that if an alternative (at any nesting level) in one matches the alternative (at any nesting level) in the other, the two policies can be considered compatible. In addition section 2.3 terminology defines a policy to be collection of policy alternatives only. No further constraints on the origin of alternatives in the collection. Similarly section 3.3 (Policy) defines a policy to be: a policy is a potentially empty collection of policy alternatives Justification: There is scope for interpretation that needs to be eliminated. Target: WS-Policy 1.5 - Framework Proposal 1. Tighten up the definition of policy to be specific about the (nesting level / origin of) collection of alternatives it groups. I am Opening a separate new issue for it. If that is properly resolved, this issue is automatically resolved. 2. Rephrase the policy compatibility statement to say Two policies are compatible if a top level alternative in one is compatible with a top level alternative in the other. Regards, Prasad Yendluri
See Also: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2006Aug/0000.html
RE There is scope however for interpretation, that if an alternative (at any nesting level) in one matches the alternative (at any nesting level) in the other, the two policies can be considered compatible. In Section 4.4, the requested distinction is called out at the policy level: - policy vs. nested policy, and - an alternative vs. the alternative in the nested policy This distinction is consistently maintained throughout Section 4.4 which seems to clarify any ambiguity raised by this e-mail. Regards, Asir S Vedamuthu Microsoft Corporation
(In reply to comment #3) > RE There is scope however for interpretation, that if an alternative (at any > nesting level) in one matches the alternative (at any nesting level) in the > other, the two policies can be considered compatible. > > > In Section 4.4, the requested distinction is called out at the policy level: > > - policy vs. nested policy, and > - an alternative vs. the alternative in the nested policy > > This distinction is consistently maintained throughout Section 4.4 which seems > to clarify any ambiguity raised by this e-mail. > > Regards, > > Asir S Vedamuthu > Microsoft Corporation > Hi Asir, In section 4.4 Section 4.4 I do not see any text that distinguishes between policy and nested policy (I am looking here: http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2006/ws/policy/ws-policy-framework.html?content-type=text/html;%20charset=utf-8#Policy_Intersection) However the main issue as I see it is that, what constitutes a policy alternative is not precisely defined. More specifically an alternative in am embedded policy expression is not ruled out to constitute an alternative of the parent policy also. We need more precise definitions of policy, policy alternative etc. IMO. Thanks. Prasad
Hi, >Prasad, do you think we should describe these concepts with illustrative >examples in the Primer? Asir, Dan and I had an offline discussion on this and I am happy to close this issue and issue 3554 with the resolution to explain / clarify these aspects in the primer. Thanks. Prasad
This issue was Resolved in the Aug 09, 2006 WS-Policy WG meeting (minutes: http://www.w3.org/2006/08/09-ws-policy-minutes.html) with the resolution to retarget the issue at the primer. The primer will incorporate the necessary text to clarify the aspects raised in the issue.