This is an archived snapshot of W3C's public bugzilla bug tracker, decommissioned in April 2019. Please see the home page for more details.

Bug 3639 - Which policy alternative was selected?
Summary: Which policy alternative was selected?
Status: RESOLVED WONTFIX
Alias: None
Product: WS-Policy
Classification: Unclassified
Component: Framework (show other bugs)
Version: FPWD
Hardware: PC Windows XP
: P2 normal
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Ashok Malhotra
QA Contact: Web Services Policy WG QA List
URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords: futureConsideration
Depends on:
Blocks: 5045
  Show dependency treegraph
 
Reported: 2006-08-29 14:32 UTC by Ashok Malhotra
Modified: 2007-09-26 16:52 UTC (History)
0 users

See Also:


Attachments

Description Ashok Malhotra 2006-08-29 14:32:27 UTC
A possible Policy processing model is as follows:  the two parties get access to each other policies (in a manner not specified in the framework) and select a Policy alternative that that appears in the Policies of both parties.  This Policy alternative is followed in both directions.  But there is no mechanism to communicate the selected alternative to either party.  Note that there may be more than one alternative in the two policies that matches and there is no simple algorithm to determine which alternative is selected.  There is also the problem of ensuring, in this case, that both parties select the same alternative from competing, matching alternatives.  This lack of knowledge makes it difficult for the Policy compliance engine check whether a message adheres to the Policy it is supposed to.

We need three things:
1. An algorithm to select a single alternative if more than one alternative in the two policies matches
2. A mechanism to indicate the selected alternative
3. An ability for the message to indicate the policy alternative it is following
Comment 1 Christopher Ferris 2006-10-11 16:45:24 UTC
See http://www.w3.org/2006/10/11-ws-policy-irc#T16-42-12

RESOLUTION: Close #3639 with no change to the policy spec but ensure that guidelines document provides adequate explanation of our logic for not dealing with this in 1.5

and mark as v.next