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 4073 - [Guidelines] Free standing statements
Summary: [Guidelines] Free standing statements
Status: RESOLVED FIXED
Alias: None
Product: WS-Policy
Classification: Unclassified
Component: Guidelines (show other bugs)
Version: FPWD
Hardware: PC Windows XP
: P2 normal
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Felix Sasaki
QA Contact: Web Services Policy WG QA List
URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2006-12-12 20:02 UTC by Asir V Selvasingh
Modified: 2007-03-13 23:52 UTC (History)
0 users

See Also:


Attachments

Description Asir V Selvasingh 2006-12-12 20:02:44 UTC
Title: [Guidelines] Free standing statements

Description:

This issue identifies 7 free standing statements in the Guidelines document without any support from the framework or the attachment or an assertion specification.


a) "WS-Policy Domain owners or WS-Policy authors are defined by the WS-Policy Framework to be a community that chooses to exploit the WS-Policy Framework by creating their own specification to define a set of assertions that express the capabilities and constraints of that target domain." [1]

There isn't any such definition in the framework draft. Can't think of a reason why this term should be defined either.


b) "WS-Policy Domain authors must also specify how to associate the assertions they have defined with the policy subjects identified by the WS-PolicyAttachment specification." [1]

A policy attachment mechanism defines how to associate policy expressions with policy subjects.

Assertion authors are not required to specify how to associate an assertion with a policy subject. But, an assertion description should specify a policy subject. For instance, if a policy assertion were to be used with WSDL, an assertion description should specify a WSDL policy subject. This topic is well covered by Section 4.7 [2] in the Guidelines document.


c) "When a web service provider chooses to make its capabilities and constraints available, it may also need to conform to requirements of other policy specifications it utilizes" [3]

'it may also need to conform' maps to 'provider may also need to conform'. Neither the framework nor the attachment document defines provider level conformance. There aren't any assertion specification that defines provider level conformance.


d) "If the domain authors want to delegate the processing to the framework, utilizing nesting should be considered. Otherwise, domain specific comparison algorithms will need to be devised and be delegated to the specific domain handlers that are not visible to the WS-Policy framework." [4]

'will need to be devised' is too strong and doesn't have any basis to support this statement. Suggest toning this statement to 'may'.


e) "WS-Policy is intended to communicate the requirements, capabilities, preferences and behaviors of nodes that provide the message's path, not specifically to declare properties of the message semantics." [5]

'preferences' cannot be represented using Web services Policy 1.5.


f) "In particular, the timing of a policy attachment or the role that a party who attaches policy should have no bearing on the evaluation of the policy assertion" [6] 

What does 'timing of a policy attachment' mean? Not aware of any such concept in the framework or attachment draft.


g) "The policy framework only defines an algorithm for calculating effective policies for WSDL 1.1 based subjects." [7]

This statement is incorrect. Policy framework neither defines any attachment mechanisms nor any algorithm for calculating effective policies. The attachment draft defines an algorithm for calculating the effective policy for a given policy subject and effective policies for WSDL 11, WSDL 20 and UDDI policy subjects.


Justification:

There is no basis to support these seven statements. These statements will confuse and mislead the readers.


Proposal:

A. Drop a)

B. Replace b) with

'An assertion author should also specify a policy subject. For instance, if a policy assertion were to be used with WSDL, an assertion description should specify a WSDL policy subject.'

C. Drop c)

D. s/will need to be devised/may need to be devised/

E. s/capabilities, preferences and behaviors/capabilities and behaviors/

F. Drop f)

G. Drop g)

[1] http://tinyurl.com/y3as59#domain-owners
[2] http://tinyurl.com/y3as59#levels-of-abstraction 
[3] http://tinyurl.com/y3as59#providers  
[4] http://tinyurl.com/y3as59#which-one-to-use 
[5] http://tinyurl.com/y3as59#self-describing 
[6] http://tinyurl.com/y3as59#context-free-policies 
[7] http://tinyurl.com/y3as59#scenario
Comment 1 Christopher Ferris 2007-03-13 23:52:43 UTC
a) [19:34] cferris: s/Assertion Authors are defined by the WS-Policy Framework to be a community that chooses to exploit the WS-Policy Framework by creating their own specification to define a set of assertions that express the capabilities and constraints of that target domain. /Assertion Authors are a community that chooses to exploit the WS-Policy Framework by creating their own specification to define a set of assertions that express the capabilities and constraints of that target domain. /

b) s/Assertion Authors must also specify how to associate the assertions they have defined with the policy subjects identified by the WS-PolicyAttachment specification./An assertion author should also specify a policy subject. For instance, if a policy assertion were to be used with WSDL, an assertion description should specify a WSDL policy subject./

c) [19:40] cferris: s/When a web service provider chooses to make its capabilities and constraints available, the provider may also need to conform to requirements of other policy assertion specifications it utilizes ( i.e., WS-SecurityPolicy).// in setion 3.1.4

d) [19:42] cferris: s/Otherwise, domain specific comparison algorithms will need to be devised and be delegated to the specific domain handlers that are not visible to the WS-Policy framework./Otherwise, domain specific comparison algorithms may need to be devised and be delegated to the specific domain handlers that are not visible to the WS-Policy framework./ in section 4.4.3

e) s/capabilities, preferences and behaviors/capabilities and behaviors/

f) [19:44] cferris: in section 6.1 s/In particular, the timing of a policy attachment or the role that a party who attaches policy should have no bearing on the evaluation of the policy assertion//

g) [19:48] cferris: in section 7 s/The policy framework only defines an algorithm for calculating effective policies for WSDL 1.1 based subjects./The WS-Policy 1.5 - Attachment specification defines algorithms for calculating the 
 effective policy for a given policy subject and effective policies for
 WSDL 1.1, WSDL 2.0 and UDDI policy subjects./

[19:51] cferris: RESOLUTION: Issue 4073 closed with resolution recorded in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Mar/0093.html
[19:51] dmoberg: Time now 4:52 PM PDT.
[19:51] cferris: rrsagent, where am i?
[19:51] RRSAgent: See http://www.w3.org/2007/03/13-ws-policy-irc#T23-52-22-1