3616 2006-08-22 20:11:44 +0000 Policy Negotiation 2007-09-26 16:52:49 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified WS-Policy Framework FPWD All All RESOLVED WONTFIX http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2006Jul/0017.html futureConsideration P4 enhancement --- 5045 1 tboubez tboubez asirveda public-ws-policy-qa oldest_to_newest 11231 0 tboubez 2006-08-22 20:11:44 +0000 Description - In Section 1.2 (Out of Scope) of the WG Charter, under the section "Application Infrastructure", policy negotiation is explicitly mentioned as out of scope. It would be useful for the WG to discuss the ramifications of this exclusion, and possibly flag it as an item for follow-on work. Justification - Considering that the spec already defines an intersection mechanism for reconciling requester and endpoint policies, and considering that policy negotiation could be an important real world usage use case (think for example of the SSL handshake as an analogy), the topic cannot be ignored. 11235 1 asirveda 2006-08-23 00:52:51 +0000 [Copying text from the mailing list discussion] URI: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2006Aug/0019.html Hi Toufic, > discuss the ramifications of this exclusion If there are any ramifications to the framework and attachment documents, the best way to move forward is to raise them as concrete framework or attachment issues. This path is consistent with the WG charter - 'The Working Group will not engage in defining application or higher-level infrastructure related to Web Services Policy including storage, negotiation,' > flag it as an item for follow-on work. Agree - this is a good item for the V.Next charter. BTW - I noticed that Chris created a new component target in Bugzilla for V.Next charter: 'New Charter'. Regards, Asir S Vedamuthu Microsoft Corporation 11675 2 tboubez 2006-09-13 23:09:35 +0000 I agree with Ashok and Toufic that this is an important case. At the same time, I think that adding the negotiation definition in any algorithmic form is premature at this point, and it may potentially impose unnecessary limitations on the future WS-Policy use cases. One can argue that policy negotiation may involve some intermediary (as in the case of policy enforcement) or be done out-of-band. I also think that policy negotiation in the form of policy exchange will be unacceptable in many cases. I agree with Asir that the specification should adhere to the Charter, and that negotiation problems, use cases, etc - as discussed in the thread below - should be postponed and raised as framework issues. Regards, Yakov Sverdlov CA -----Original Message----- On Behalf Of Ashok Malhotra I have no objection to postponing negotiation to v.Next but it would be nice to get a definition on the table. Here's a possible definition. 1. The two endpoints exchange policies. If they agree on a policy alternative the negotiation stops. 2. If they cannot agree on an alternative then: EITHER: one of the endpoints introduces a new, or amended, policy and we go back to 1. OR: Policy negotiation fails. Toufic, if this something like what you had in mind? All the best, Ashok