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 3616 - Policy Negotiation
Summary: Policy Negotiation
Alias: None
Product: WS-Policy
Classification: Unclassified
Component: Framework (show other bugs)
Version: FPWD
Hardware: All All
: P4 enhancement
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Toufic Boubez
QA Contact: Web Services Policy WG QA List
Keywords: futureConsideration
Depends on:
Blocks: 5045
  Show dependency treegraph
Reported: 2006-08-22 20:11 UTC by Toufic Boubez
Modified: 2007-09-26 16:52 UTC (History)
1 user (show)

See Also:


Description Toufic Boubez 2006-08-22 20:11:44 UTC
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.
Comment 1 Asir V Selvasingh 2006-08-23 00:52:51 UTC
[Copying text from the mailing list discussion]

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'. 


Asir S Vedamuthu
Microsoft Corporation
Comment 2 Toufic Boubez 2006-09-13 23:09:35 UTC
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.


Yakov Sverdlov

-----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