WS Policy WG
13 Mar 2007

 

 

coordination between the two rooms/tracks

paul: the interop group has the scenarios and can begin and let us know on an as needed basis if you find any problems

reviewing logistics - Prasad

chris: there is time tomorrow & thurs am to report back

<sanka> Is the interop group use the same IRC channel ?

paul: this group will be trying to make progress on the guidelines & primer documents
... would be good to know how people are progressing on the various rounds

the interop group will use #ws-policy-interop for their irc

jonathan will set that up

review agenda

chris: some requests to juggle the items
... charlton would like to move 4292 to the afternoon

review last telecon minutes

chris: minutes were posted & cleaned up
... minutes approved

review future meetings

chris: no meeting next week
... next F2F hosted in Ottawa by Nortel
... july hosted in Dublin and logistics have been posted
... people should register as soon as possible
... people should register an intent, you can always change it later, but consideration of the host scheduling challenges is encouraged

editors team report

maryann: the editors sent a new working draft of the wsdl 1.1 identifiers doc to the working group implementing the proposals accepted by the WG at the last call

review open action items

234 Asir to provide format for recording interop results

action 234 closed

238 Paul & Chris

chris: results will be anonimized
... chairs will provide a means to have results recorded for exit criteria but not to have notification of company, the results will be entered as anonymous
... felix will enter the results with the anonymous titles if you send a private email to felix

<Nadalin> so Felix will know how submitted results ?

chris: chairs will send mail to the editors and then they will update the results as they determine ( editors should discuss who often to update)
... yes felix will know how to process submitted results, and this process happens a lot in the W3c
... an example of this is on the XML query page
... we need to capture the data for the exit criteria but people can have their results anonymized

action 238 closed

action 241

<Nadalin> I assume all results will be anonymized, its not an option ?

<cferris> Tony, anonymization of interop results IS an option... you are not required to report anonymously

<Nadalin> odd

action 241 is closed

243 Asir to produce a list of change areas in the framework and attachments primer and guidelines

243 is pending

<cferris> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Mar/0076.html

action 246

action 246 is closed

action 247 pending .....

chris: it would be good to try to get a proposal out tonight

prasad: we will meet at lunch

chris: our goal is to try to knock out as many items as we can

AI 248

AI 248 is pending

AI 249 create separate mailing list

AI 249 is done public-ws-policy-interop@w3.org

felix created this

6. WS-Policy Call for Implementations

chris: there are some new ones that will be reported

b) Discussion of interop infrastructure and setup requirements

<scribe> done

d) Editor's questions about interop scenarios

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Feb/0037.html

<cferris> discuss editor's questions re interop scenarios

<cferris> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Feb/0037.html

prasad: there are multiple questions

what format we should use to maintain the test cases

prasad: there are 2 separate documents

felix: i see an issue that we need to make people aware of the tow

asir: there are 3 things

the scenarios, the test cases ( xml format) , there is a report mechanism

prasad: what is that?
... is there an agenda item?

chris: we can discuss that tomorrow

asir: the 4th thing is the machine generated files that creates the results

chris: we'll setup time tomorrow when we have the interop guys in the room to review the process of updating the results

felix: this came from questions I proposed, and I'm satisfied with the 4 steps identified above

<cferris> RESOLUTION: Issue 4311 closed with result of AI-234 06http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Mar/0062.html01

agenda item 7. CR Issues

a. [NEW ISSUE] 4379 Note about c14n 1.1 , Felix

<cferris> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Mar/0051.html

felix: there is a solution under development and this is an editorial proposal to add a note in the draft

chris: how sure are we that this addresses the issue?

felix: we had one review from Paul

asir: i was under the impression that this solution was only a step toward the complete resolution

frederick: add additional text to identify the other pieces that might need to be updated
... this is something that has been discussed by the new working group

asir: i don't know how you identify ongoing work in another working group in a normative spec

chris: felix's proposal is to add a note that there is ongoing work ( not a ha-ha it doesn't work)

<Nadalin> that new group may not result in a solution

<Nadalin> anytime

<Nadalin> so I don't like to point to this new group

<cferris> ok, so quibble with Frederick's proposal when he drafts it

felix: do you want this marked up as a note in xmlspec >

asir: yes

<Nadalin> yes sir

<FHirsch> The W3C XML Security Maintanance WG has been chartered to address how to integrate C14n 1.1 with XML Security, including XML Signature.

<Nadalin> and there is nothing to chartered in other groups to consume.use it

<cferris> so, the full resolution as proposed would be:

<FHirsch> Tony, huh?

<cferris> Note that [c14n 1.1] addresses the issues which occur with Canonical XML 1.0. The W3C XML Security Maintanance WG has been chartered to address how to integrate C14n 1.1 with XML Security, including XML Signature.

<cferris> Add informative reference to [c14n 1.1]

<cferris> add this with mark-up that indicates that it is informative note

<Nadalin> it potentially addresses, we don't know for sure

<FHirsch> add reference to charter.

chris: this is just to indicate that there is this work going on

<FHirsch> Tony, seems ok to give information - now how to address your concern?

<FHirsch> Add sentence: This is work in progress that the reader should be aware of.

chris: is there anyone in the group that would object to adding this note to the spec?

<Nadalin> the disclaimer sounds better

william: how would this reference be maintained? updated?

frederick: you just want to indicate to people that this issue is being addressed

<Nadalin> can't we just work is going on in W3C and leave it at that ?

william: people might need to know when/how this will be done, so that you know

<Nadalin> its potentially being addressed

frederick: there is a date in the charter for the working group

ashok: is this a problem that is well understood?

frederick: i think the working group needs to look at what is being proposed and to make it a req

<Nadalin> I think there are different views

<FHirsch> yes, but needs to go through W3C process to address various issues, and to REC

<Nadalin> >integrate C14n 1.1 with XML Security .... what is XML Security ?

frederick: we could just have a reference to the work group page which has links both to the charter and the status

<cferris> Note that [c14n 1.1] is intended to address the issues that occur with Canonical XML 1.0 in regards to xml:id. The W3C XML Security Maintanance WG has been chartered to address how to integrate C14n 1.1 with XML Security, including XML Signature.

<cferris> 04[13:06] cferris: 01Add informative reference to [c14n 1.1]

<cferris> 04[13:07] cferris: 01add this with mark-up that indicates that it is informative note

<cferris> add reference to new WG

<Nadalin> so this seems like a nomative change to the spec

<cferris> no, this is an INFORMATIVE change

<Nadalin> no this will effect how C14N processing is done

<Nadalin> otherwise why include it ?

<cferris> The intent of this INFORMATIVE NOTE is to indicate that there is work ongoing, chartered by the w3c to address the issues that have been cited in the normative spec

<fsasaki> Nadalin, to save my / W3Cs face and to make an INFORMATIVE statement ;)

<cferris> the w3c is looking to add an INFORMATIVE note in the spec that says, to the effect: we are working on resolving the problems

<cferris> are you okay with the above?

<Nadalin> putting this in the spec will effect how C14N processing is done

<cferris> no, it will NOT

<Nadalin> yes it WILL

<cferris> it just says that we are working on the problem

<cferris> nyah, nyah, nyah, nyah

<Nadalin> then why put it in at all ?

<cferris> because the w3c has asked that we do

<Nadalin> what is the reason?

<cferris> are you opposed to adding this informative note?

<cferris> can you dial in?

<Nadalin> yes

<Nadalin> non can't dial in, sorry

<cferris> ok, I will try to catch you up

paul: having this type of informative note is not typical, but i could live with it if there is a reference to the working group page

paul (channelling tony) there is a way bigger bar to get over here with actual deployment of solutions that will in the future be based on this working groups results

<Nadalin> there is a problem, there is no solution yet, so why are we including any note ?

resuming discussion of a. [NEW ISSUE] 4379 Note about c14n 1.1 , Felix

<monica> ping

<cferris> 04[13:18] cferris: 01Note: that [c14n 1.1] is intended to address the issues that occur with Canonical XML 1.0 in regards to xml:id. The W3C XML Security Maintanance WG [link with accessability goop] has been chartered to address how to integrate C14n 1.1 with XML Security, including XML Signature.

<cferris> 04[13:06] cferris: 01Add informative reference to [c14n 1.1]

<cferris> 04[13:07] cferris: 01add this with mark-up that indicates that it is informative note

chris: anyone opposed ?

<cferris> RESOLUTION: close 4379 by updating Framework and Primer with the following INFORMATIVE note:

<cferris> 04[14:24] cferris: 04[13:18] cferris: 01Note: that [c14n 1.1] is intended to address the issues that occur with Canonical XML 1.0 in regards to xml:id. The W3C XML Security Maintanance WG [link with accessability goop] has been chartered to address how to integrate C14n 1.1 with XML Security, including XML Signature.

<cferris> 04[13:06] cferris: 01Add informative reference to [c14n 1.1]

<cferris> 04[13:07] cferris: 01add this with mark-up that indicates that it is informative note

chris updated the bug with the references to the sections in the framework and the primer

<cferris> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=4379

chris: next one is deferred until charlton comes....b. [NEW ISSUE] 4292 Intersection mode is neither defaulted nor specified

http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=4292

<cferris> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=4389

<prasad> New Proposal from today: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Mar/0081.html

agenda item c, 4389

prasad: the proposal is in mail -0081, the uddi v2 keys are mapped from the v3 keys
... updated the original proposal with this last night after input from luc
... also some minor editorial
... there are 3 t-models that are impacted (need to also change w3c to w3)

felix: might consdier keeping these as entities in the draft

paul: we should consider republishing the attachment cr working draft
... it doesn't break the namespace, so we can leave the namespace uri the same, and adopt the effect of this proposal and republish
... the dates of the two specs will be different

prasad: i had toufic & luc (hp) look at this
... no impact to interop

chris: but the scenarios might need to be updated

felix: what chris & paul proposed is ok with philippe

toufic: should we wait and see if there are other things we catch in the interop

paul: publish early publish often
... i would wait for the end of the meeting, and if we republish at the end of march this would be ok

<asir> related editorial items are http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/wspolicyeds/actions/182

<asir> http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/wspolicyeds/actions/183

prasad: luc pointed out another minor issue, that we point to old versions of uddi specs
... is that ok to do as part of the change?

paul: any time you touch references it should be a different action

prasad: in the v2 reference, it points to an older version of the spec which includes errata etc.
... its the url in the references section that has to change

chris: you should open an issue and put the updated references so we can review

<fsasaki> http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/ws/2003/03/remotepolicyreference/

prasad: the first url, points to the t-model

<fsasaki> http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/ws/2003/03/policytypes/

felix: there are several uri's like this

prasad: the 3 t-models all go to a different place but the content is the same

<fsasaki> http://www.w3.org/ns/ws-policy/Sha1Exc

<cferris> would http://w3.org/ns/wspolicy#remotepolicyreference make sense?

<cferris> apparently not, we have already set precedent with the Sha1 URI

tom: what is the timeframe on comments on CR?

paul: we have exit criteria, and we've said we won't exit before june

chris: we're in CR until we move to PR
... we have to assess with each proposed change

and if its signifcant we can go back to working draft

<cferris> RESOLUTION: close Issue 4389 with the proposal from Prasad http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Mar/0081.html amended to change the URN from w3c.org to w3.org, regenerate uddiv2 tmodel keys, and make appropriate changes to test scenarios to use new keys, namespaces etc. and post resource page at the end of the 3 URIs defined by this change

felix: it is easier to keep the two docs in sync and publish both

<asir> I created two editorial actions: attachment and scenarios

<cferris> RESOLUTION: seek to republish Framework and Attachments CR documents with this change applied as of March 31, 2007

paul: to notify the interop group of this change

<cferris> break for lunch, resume at 1:00 PDT

chris: Charlton 4292 deferred until Wednesday.

<abbie> ok

chris: 4253 to be covered today.

regathering

<cferris> scribe: dmoberg

<cferris> resuming

Adoption of CR test cases

agenda item 8.

Feature 22 test cases

ashok: dave incorporated in round 4 tests
... are round 4 self tests or not?

paul: no, uddi tests are interop.

ashok: round 4 tests from ashok are self tests

asir: round 1, 2 are self test 3 are interop
... round 4 has uddi 12 interop and some unit.
... external attachments for 1.1 and 2.0, are self tests.
... next, page 6 correct response for testcase 1-- no policy assertions only references

ashok: cases based on asir's wsdl

chris: fragment identifiers should point to things in the wsdl

ashok: understood

daveo: can do fixes,

ashok: daveo discuss where to place policy into the wsdl that is referred to.

chris: between the definitons eii and the types eii, right?

ashok: right.

chris: action 240 done
... Feature 23 status?
... OK good to go

paul: are the test case documents date stamped?
... versioning will become more important as participants outside group join in

prasad: there is a change log

ashok: how about a version number and a date?

paul: wants simplest solution possible

daveo: exact date in document or in filename or both

chris: fields in word can be used to auto update

asir: snapshots with document and test data might be preferable

paul: can call current version v 1

chris: argues for auto update again

asir: likes packages of snapshots
... anonymous read access, sticky version timestamped to be checked out

paul: simple timestamps good, but also a single package for announcing basis for a round of testing

<fsasaki> anynomous read done by CVSROOT=:pserver:anonymous@dev.w3.org:/sources/public , password: anonymous

<fsasaki> see also http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/

<scribe> ACTION: asir to have timestamps on document and stable packages for release [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/03/13-ws-policy-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-250 - Have timestamps on document and stable packages for release [on Asir Vedamuthu - due 2007-03-20].

<cferris> ACTION: Editors to work out a process for making the interop scenario/test cases available as a "package" so that we have an ED and WD versions [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/03/13-ws-policy-minutes.html#action02]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-251 - Work out a process for making the interop scenario/test cases available as a \"package\" so that we have an ED and WD versions [on Editors - due 2007-03-20].

daveo: information is found in 2 places. that is a concern

toufic: likes the single source under editors' control

various details for editors to consider are considered

<cferris> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Mar/0068.html

chris: feature 43, and that action is done,
... reviews history of negative testing cases, but examples using ExactlyOnce (misspelling) are possible
... TwoOutofThreeAintBad operator, example. Just end up being treated as assertions.

asir: Notes normalizing was done in round one.

chris: Thinks it is still a Misc item for 4.
... any objections to adding to test suite (somewhere)

No objections voiced. Editors' choice on where to put tests.

Next we consider Fabian's issue 4370

Chris: should we get Fabian? Pause as Fabian is sought.

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Mar/0030.html

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Mar/0030.html

Asir response http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Mar/0031.html

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Mar/0031.html

<cferris> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Mar/0057.html

Fabian: issue not cleanly resolved, asks for a bit more time,

<cferris> ACTION: Fabian open new follow-up issue to 4370 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/03/13-ws-policy-minutes.html#action03]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-252 - Open new follow-up issue to 4370 [on Fabian Ritzmann - due 2007-03-20].

<cferris> RESOLUTION: 4370 closed with editorial change in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Mar/0057.html

cferris: Any other test issues?

liaison items

cferris: Ws-addressing is considering input from Policy
... Issues deferred until they finish

Primer issues

cferris: Issue 4213 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Mar/0031.html

<cferris> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Mar/0076.html

maryann: example for guidelines document?

asir: should be for primer document?

editors to determine inclusion of example in documents on 4213

<cferris> RESOLUTION: close 4213 with proposal from Maryann in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Mar/0076.html but applied to Primer, not GL

Issue 4262: Use of @wsp:optional and @wsp:Ignorable deferred

Issue 4300 - Misue of best practises in primer, Umit

dorchard: not yet done
... There will be an opportunity to re-energize issue. How about now?

paul: a proposal would have been nice but ...

primer section put on display

search on "best"

dorchard: likes style and content, are there other places for best practice in the primer?
... likes the observations to be highlighted

asir: the observations currently sum up the paragraphs. How can this be done without appearing to poach on guidelines turf?

dorchard: still like highlights on these points
... two issues, phrase "best practice" and highlight of observation.

miscellaneous: no change also possible.

maryann: any other examples that are models for x?

paul: hunt for other examples of potential best practice is possibly useless
... 2nd comment, see the editorial note on section 3.10-- WG still undecided about fate.
... endorses removing editorial note and leave text alone

dorchard: propose close action with no action, and respond by explaining 3.10 note

monica: there are other items that are best practices in the primer document probably

maryann: removing note should be separate issue from disposition of best practice

cferris: who objects to closing this issue with no action with out a survey of other candidates for best practices

<DaveO> a response like: This is a different section than others, as noted in the editorial note, and so the best practices appear to be relevent. We also think there may be other best practices in the primer that will be called out. Some members intimated they thought there were such best practices that would be discovered.

monica: best practices in primer means the same as best practice in guidelines?

maryann: intended audience modifies the interpretation...

asir: elaborates on intended audience differences

paul: "am i really dumb here?" greeted by gales of amusement
... continues, have we considered shift to guidelines?

dorchard: reviews history of editorial groupings

paul: notes that the affinities of texts for documents involve a fair amount of subjectivity
... movement would take us back to ....

many: no, this has no normative impact.

dorchard: wants content of best practices retained. Not wedded to terminology "best practice"

cferris: either include more best practices, move out which may mean 1. remove terminology or 2 remove content

maryann: proposal to change primer introduction to shift intended audience, thus making the advisory content at home

dorchard and asir ask for clarification and receive it

<DaveO> 3:10 Versioning Policy Language provides specific information on versioning of the policy language itself

<DaveO> And is mostly intended for policy implementors

<cferris> 4. Versioning Policy Language is intended to provide examples and best practices on versioning of the policy language itself, mostly intended for policy implementers

maryann: reacts favorably to DaveO wording with addition of intended audience
... adds section 4 in intro with specialized context to make best practices have a home

dorchard: finds acceptable section 4

maryann: +1

asir: how about dropping editorial note

cferris: not yet under discussion

<DaveO> not yet..

<cferris> RESOLUTION: 4300 closed with the following change:

cferris: any objections to editors' action as discussed and then for closing 4300? None voiced

<cferris> 1. change section 3.10 to section 4

<cferris> add 4. Versioning Policy Language is intended to provide examples and best practices on versioning of the policy language itself, mostly intended for policy implementers

<cferris> to intro

Issue 4103 - Questionable use of Contoso Ltd in Primer, Chris Ferris

cferris: reminds that Williams issue d and e to top.

Issue 4253 - [primer] Basic Concepts section on Policy does not explain usage reasonably

See http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Mar/0048.html

William Henry to a concrete proposal for 4255 and 4253

william Henry to a concrete proposal for 4255 and 4253

whenry: simple example at start of text.

dan: ok

cferris: any objections to closing both issues? none voiced

<cferris> RESOLUTION: 4253 and 4255 closed with proposals from William in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Feb/0078.html and http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Feb/0076.html

Back to Issue 4103 - Questionable use of Contoso Ltd in Primer, Chris Ferris

<cferris> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Feb/0033.html

cferris: any objection to replacing contoso ltd by a less risky phrase? None voiced

<cferris> RESOLUTION: 4103 closed with proposal in 04 01http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Feb/0033.html

Cookie break.

Return from the cookie break.

b) Issue 4339 - Update references to interoperability in Ignorable Policy Expressions

<asir> the current ignorable example is at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2006/ws/policy/ws-policy-primer.html?content-type=text/html;%20charset=utf-8#ignorable-policy-assertions

<cferris> RESOLUTION: 4339 closed with proposal from Maryann in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Mar/0075.html

cferris: Is Maryann's amendment OK for this issue? No objections voiced

c) Issue 4263 - Add text to ignorable discussion on passing ignorable

<cferris> Proposal: Add following text proposed to be added at end of new section 3.4.1 Strict and Lax Policy Intersection:

<cferris> 'Domain-specific processing could take advantage of any information from the policy data model, such as the ignorable property of a policy assertion'.

cferris: Any objections? None voiced

<cferris> RESOLUTION: close 4263 with proposal above

f) Issue 4288 - Primer: Absence of Policy Assertions (editorial), Monica

<monica> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Mar/0084.html

When an assertion whose type is part of the policy's vocabulary is not included in a policy alternative, the policy alternative without the assertion type indicates that the assertion will not be applied in the context of the attached policy subject.

cferris: Has doubt that this will solve all readers' comprehension problems.
... Does anyone object to taking Monica and Maryann's proposals to resolve issue 4288? None voiced

monica: Notes that others contributed to the resolution...

<cferris> RESOLUTION: Issue 4288 closed with monica's proposal in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Mar/0084.html as amended by Maryann in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Mar/0047.html with acknowledgements around the table to all those that contributed to the iterations/discussions

cferris: typing in resolution

<cferris> felix: suggests we may want to revisit the thinking as to whether the primer is going to follow rec track

<cferris> paulc: suggests that we defer that until after CR for the framework and attachments

Guidelines issues

ISSUE 4035: [guidelines] Section 2 should account for interop impact of non-wire or one-party assertions and ignorable property

discussion concerning scope of this issue

asir feedback http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Feb/0169.html

cferris: reminds assembly of goals to arrive at a revision and then take stock after all rolled up changes

have been made

<cferris> RESOLUTION: issue 4035 closed with the proposal from Frederick as amended by Asir in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Feb/0169.html

ISSUE 4040: [guidelines] Update guidelines to include discussion of ignorable, Frederick

<cferris> RESOLUTION: issue 4040 closed with no action... addressed in other issues related to ignorable

Guidelines issues, Part 2

ISSUE 3987: Section 5.9 - Lifecycle of Assertions?, Asir

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2006Nov/0111.html

asir: reviews history of 3987

maryann: believes subject attachment extensibility needs to be prepared, taken over by maryann from umit.

<asir> search the minutes - Jan 31st http://www.w3.org/2007/01/31-ws-policy-minutes.html - look for 3987, partial resolution

asir: believes first two items resolved, and maryann will address third item in 3987 tomorrow

ISSUE 4035: [ Guidelines] Section 2 should account for interop impact of non-wire or one-party assertions and ignorable property

repeated, done already

ISSUE 4072: Statements not relevant to assertion design, Dan

dan: not yet ready

ISSUE 3979: Clarify the guidance in section 5.9.1 on referencing policy expressions, Dan Roth

asir: thinks we are ready with response

See http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Feb/0167.html

asir: notes that example of xinclude is to be omitted

maryann: does anyone want to retain xinclude?

<cferris> RESOLUTION: issue 3979 closed with proposal in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Feb/0167.html as amended by removing the phrase: ', such as XInclude,'

ISSUE 4073: Free standing statements, Asir

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2006Dec/0049.html

asir: Guidelines has statement that says Framework defines some terms. Framework does not do this. Suggestion: remove statement.

frederick: so why not just remove the attribution of the definition?

<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

asir: that is ok

<cferris> 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./

asir: point c, drop item

<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).//

cferris: Any objections to dropping c? None voiced

asir: Point d weakens "well need to be devised" to "may need to be revised"

<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

cferris: Objections? None made.

asir: Point e objects to "preferences" Drop word.

<cferris> s/capabilities, preferences and behaviors/capabilities and behaviors/

cferris: Objections? None.

<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//

asir: Point f , remove sentence 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

maryann: agrees that timing sentence should be removed.

monica: Asks for clarification and receives it.

asir: Point g is that it is inaccurate to say: "The policy framework only defines an algorithm for calculating

effective policies for WSDL 1.1 based subjects."

<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

<cferris> effective policy for a given policy subject and effective policies for

<cferris> WSDL 1.1, WSDL 2.0 and UDDI policy subjects./

cferris: Will send summary email on the changes for issue 4073.

Guidelines issues, Part 3 (4:00 pm PDT)

<cferris> RESOLUTION: Issue 4073 closed with resolution recorded in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Mar/0093.html

Time now 4:52 PM PDT.

ISSUE 3978: Clarify if Section 7 on defining new policy attachment mechanisms is necessary, Dan Roth

Not yet ready for 3978.

cferris: Issue 3989 proposal submitted by IBM and Microsoft.

asir: Reviews history of 3989.
... A list of initial good practice statements would help organize document. Model from Arch. of WWW.
... Model for presentation of good practice exhibited.

<cferris> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Mar/0069.html

See http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Mar/0069.html

felix: Notes that format used elsewhere.

cferris: Ask people to review format proposal during the evening hours.