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 3986 - [Guidelines] Parameter vs. Nested Policy Decision at Domain Level?
Summary: [Guidelines] Parameter vs. Nested Policy Decision at Domain Level?
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: 2006-11-18 01:24 UTC by Asir V Selvasingh
Modified: 2007-02-07 17:09 UTC (History)
0 users

See Also:


Attachments

Description Asir V Selvasingh 2006-11-18 01:24:47 UTC
Title: Parameters vs. Nested Policy decision at the Domain Level?

Description: The Guidelines document says, 'For some domains it will be appropriate to specify these parameters instead of nesting assertion elements.' [1]. But, the document does not provide any rationale (or motivations) as to why the use of assertion parameters vs. nested policy should be decided at the domain level.

Justification: there is no basis to support this statement.

Target: Guidelines for Assertion Authors.

Proposal: Drop this sentence.

[1] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2006/ws/policy/ws-policy-guidelines.html?rev=1.8&content-type=text/html;%20charset=utf-8#parameterized-assertions
Comment 1 Christopher Ferris 2007-01-18 22:41:35 UTC
chris: maybe say "domain specific compatibility processing"
See http://www.w3.org/2007/01/18-ws-policy-irc#T22-39-02
RESOLUTION: Accept the proposal in message 187 for resolving issue 3985 and
3986 with Chris's ammendment above
Comment 2 Paul Cotton 2007-02-07 17:09:25 UTC
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-ws-policy/2007Feb/0003.html

Note: the original resolution SHOULD have been recorded as:

chris: maybe say "domain specific compatibility processing"
See http://www.w3.org/2007/01/18-ws-policy-irc#T22-39-02
RESOLUTION: Accept the proposal in message 187 for resolving issue 3985 and
3986 with Chris's ammendment above