[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [ws-sx] WS-Policy and WS-Trust
Martin: I would argue that the CR version of WS-Policy is stable and we are unlikely to see significant changes as it proceeds towards recommendation. This is a personal assessment from my view as a member of the WS-Policy WG. All the best, Ashok > -----Original Message----- > From: Martin Chapman [mailto:martin.chapman@oracle.com] > Sent: Friday, March 09, 2007 5:17 AM > To: 'ws-sx' > Subject: RE: [ws-sx] WS-Policy and WS-Trust > > Many TCs went through exactly the same arguments over ws-addressing, and > in all cases they decided not to rely on the member > submission. Also WS-RX recently faced the same problem and has revised its > spec to point to the CR version. We should be consistent > across these specs if composibility is to make sense. > > Finally, the charter clearly states that if such specs are not far enough > along the standardisation process, an abstract model > should be defined. The member submission is clearly not far enough along > since it has been superseded. If people think this > superseded version is unstable, I have no idea why it is in CR, but in > that case an abstract model is required as per the charter. > > Martin. > > > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: Michael McIntosh [mailto:mikemci@us.ibm.com] > >Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2007 11:43 PM > >To: Ashok Malhotra > >Cc: Anthony Nadalin; Greg Whitehead; Tony Gullotta; ws-sx > >Subject: RE: [ws-sx] WS-Policy and WS-Trust > > > > > >"Ashok Malhotra" <ashok.malhotra@oracle.com> wrote on > >03/08/2007 04:55:16 > >PM: > > > >> For the record, the WS-Policy charter says that they will go into CR > >> in March. This was just completed. The plan is to go to PR in July > >> and > >then > >> to recommendation. Clearly, these are estimates but so far the WG > >> has done well and followed the timeline. > >> > >> So, if we want to wait for PR, we have to wait 4 months. > > > >That is the plan, but who is to say that someone won't come > >along at the > >last minute and vote against it? We can't be dependent on that. > > > >> > >> All the best, Ashok > >> > -----Original Message----- > >> > From: Tony Gullotta [mailto:tony.gullotta@soa.com] > >> > Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2007 12:55 PM > >> > To: Greg Whitehead; Michael McIntosh > >> > Cc: Anthony Nadalin; ws-sx > >> > Subject: RE: [ws-sx] WS-Policy and WS-Trust > >> > > >> > Ok. So I know this is ugly, may not be allowed, and most likely > >everyone > >> > will hate it but I'll throw it out there. Can we host that version > >> > of the ws-policy xsd along with the ws-sx xsds and just change the > >> > schemaLocation attribute so consumers would pull that > >version of the > >> > ws-policy xsd? Does that require a formal submission? > >> > > >> > We are locked in on that version so we won't get any fixes > >to issues > >> > that may be raised but I think that's ok. > >> > > >> > Tony > >> > > >> > -----Original Message----- > >> > From: Greg Whitehead [mailto:greg.whitehead@hp.com] > >> > Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2007 12:28 PM > >> > To: Tony Gullotta; Michael McIntosh > >> > Cc: Anthony Nadalin; ws-sx > >> > Subject: Re: [ws-sx] WS-Policy and WS-Trust > >> > > >> > As stated below, my concerns with referencing the member > >submission > >> > at W3C > >> > are: > >> > > >> > 1) Is that a stable reference? Does W3C keep member submissions > >> > around and publicly accessible in perpetuity? > >> > > >> > 2) What is the errata process for a member submission at > >W3C? Is the > >> > WS-Policy working group going to respond to issues with that > >> > document > >or > >> > manage errata? > >> > > >> > I guess another question is: > >> > > >> > 3) What is the IPR policy for a member submission at W3C (as > >> > compared > >to > >> > what the IPR policy will be on the final output of the WS-Policy > >working > >> > group)? > >> > > >> > -Greg > >> > > >> > On 3/8/07 9:55 AM, "Tony Gullotta" <tony.gullotta@soa.com> wrote: > >> > > >> > > I don't think 1) is good considering the input of the ws-policy > >> > > representatives on the call. If they don't feel like > >ws-policy is > >> > > close to completion, we shouldn't wait for it. > >> > > > >> > > 3) might be ok for ws-trust, but it won't work for > >ws-securitypolicy. > >> > > > >> > > I agree with what you are saying in principal for 2. I'm not sure > >why > >> > > we need to "submit" that spec to OASIS though. By referencing it > >> > > in our spec's and by approving our spec's, isn't that > >enough? When > >> > > you approve ws-trust or ws-securitypolicy, you are approving the > >> > > use of that ws-policy spec already. > >> > > > >> > > Tony > >> > > > >> > > -----Original Message----- > >> > > From: Greg Whitehead [mailto:greg.whitehead@hp.com] > >> > > Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2007 12:35 AM > >> > > To: Michael McIntosh > >> > > Cc: Anthony Nadalin; ws-sx > >> > > Subject: Re: [ws-sx] WS-Policy and WS-Trust > >> > > > >> > > I realize it's painful to be having this discussion at this late > >stage > >> > > >> > > in the process, but the fact of the matter is that the > >process is > >> > > there to ensure the quality of the work that this TC produces. > >> > > > >> > > I, for one, had lost track of this issue and I share the concern > >> > > raised with the no vote about having a normative reference in an > >Oasis > >> > > >> > > spec to another spec that is not itself the final > >product of Oasis > >or > >> > > any other standards body. Is there even any precedent for this in > >> > Oasis? > >> > > > >> > > My concerns are largely practical: where will people go to obtain > >the > >> > > authoritative copy of the version of the WS-Policy spec that we > >> > > are referencing? Who will manage errata for that version of the > >WS-Policy > >> > > spec if we discover problems down the road? > >> > > > >> > > I think there are several responsible options: > >> > > > >> > > 1) Wait for W3C to finalize WS-Policy and reference that final > >> > version. > >> > > > >> > > 2) Solicit the submission of the version of WS-Policy > >that we are > >> > > referencing to Oasis WSSX and vote it to CS along with > >our specs. > >> > > We're implicitly doing this anyway by including a normative > >reference > >> > to it. > >> > > > >> > > 3) Copy the schema for wsp:AppliesTo into WS-Trust (as > >wst:AppliesTo) > >> > > and drop the references to wsp:Policy and wsp:PolicyReference > >> > > until W3C finalizes WS-Policy, at which time we can come > >out with > >> > > a new version of WS-Trust that adds them back. > >> > > > >> > > -Greg > >> > > > >> > > On 3/7/07 6:23 PM, "Michael McIntosh" <mikemci@us.ibm.com> wrote: > >> > > > >> > >> I think its clear that the intended effect of the commented out > >part > >> > >> of the WS-Trust schema is to match with what the specification > >> > >> describes in text. It was commented to avoid an overly strict > >> > >> interpretation of > >ordering > >> > > >> > >> of elements. > >> > >> It is also clear that, for any hope of > >interoperability, message > >> > >> producer and message consumer must use/expect same > >namespace. We > >> > >> cannot include a vague reference to an undefined WS-Policy > >> > >> namespace - or implementions will not be interoperable. > >We cannot > >> > >> change to a new namespace and in good faith claim to have > >> > >> demonstrated interoperability. If we decide to change > >now to the > >> > >> latest WS-Policy draft - what do > >we > >> > > >> > >> do when by the time we get around to last day of next > >member vote > >> > >> WS-Policy's latest draft has changed again? We cannot continue > >> > >> this cycle until WS-Policy completes its work - > >we > >> > > >> > >> should put stake in ground now with what we have proven > >works now > >and > >> > > >> > >> revise later when WS-Policy reaches closure. > >> > >> Members of this TC were aware of or should have been aware of > >> > >> this issue all along, one no vote by non-participant member on > >> > >> issue > >that > >> > >> was discussed and addressed in the TC should not cause TC > >> > >> dramatically > >> > > > >> > >> change its plans and schedule for delivery. > >> > >> > >> > >> Regards, > >> > >> Mike > >> > >> > >> > >> Greg Whitehead <greg.whitehead@hp.com> wrote on 03/07/2007 > >> > >> 06:00:32 > >> > > PM: > >> > >> > >> > >>> If you look more carefully you?ll notice that the wsp > >namespace > >> > >>> declaration is not used (outside of comments), so it has no > >> > >>> impact on > >> > > > >> > >>> the schema. > >> > >>> > >> > >>> -Greg > >> > >>> > >> > >>> On 3/7/07 4:39 PM, "Anthony Nadalin" <drsecure@us.ibm.com> > >> > >>> wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >>> I just looked at the schema on the web site and I show it there > >> > >>> ----------------- > >> > >>> Sent from my BlackBerry Handheld. > >> > >>> > >> > >>> ----- Original Message ----- > >> > >>> From: Greg Whitehead [greg.whitehead@hp.com] > >> > >>> Sent: 03/07/2007 03:36 PM > >> > >>> To: Anthony Nadalin > >> > >>> Cc: ws-sx <ws-sx@lists.oasis-open.org> > >> > >>> Subject: Re: [ws-sx] WS-Policy and WS-Trust > >> > >>> > >> > >>> As I said before, there is no wsp:Policy element > >declared in the > >WS- > >> > > >> > >>> Trust schema file (the only mention of wsp:Policy is in a > >comment). > >> > >>> The content model of RST and RSTR is xs:any. > >> > >>> > >> > >>> -Greg > >> > >>> > >> > >>> > >> > >>> On 3/7/07 4:32 PM, "Anthony Nadalin" <drsecure@us.ibm.com> > >> > >>> wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >>> In the namespace declaration to resolve the wsp:Policy element > >> > >>> ----------------- > >> > >>> Sent from my BlackBerry Handheld. > >> > >>> > >> > >>> ----- Original Message ----- > >> > >>> From: Greg Whitehead [greg.whitehead@hp.com] > >> > >>> Sent: 03/07/2007 03:24 PM > >> > >>> To: Anthony Nadalin > >> > >>> Cc: ws-sx <ws-sx@lists.oasis-open.org> > >> > >>> Subject: Re: [ws-sx] WS-Policy and WS-Trust > >> > >>> > >> > >>> Perhaps you can point to where it is expressed in the > >schema. I > >> > >>> certainly don?t see it. > >> > >>> > >> > >>> -Greg > >> > >>> > >> > >>> > >> > >>> On 3/7/07 4:22 PM, "Anthony Nadalin" <drsecure@us.ibm.com> > >> > >>> wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >>> They are expressed in the schema so I'm not following > >your claim > >as > >> > >>> it has to resolve the scheama use of wsp:Policy > >> > >>> ----------------- > >> > >>> Sent from my BlackBerry Handheld. > >> > >>> > >> > >>> ----- Original Message ----- > >> > >>> From: Greg Whitehead [greg.whitehead@hp.com] > >> > >>> Sent: 03/07/2007 03:13 PM > >> > >>> To: Anthony Nadalin > >> > >>> Cc: <ws-sx@lists.oasis-open.org> > >> > >>> Subject: Re: [ws-sx] WS-Policy and WS-Trust > >> > >>> > >> > >>> I?m just saying that the only normative reference to the > >> > >>> WS-Policy namespace, or even that wsp:Policy is legal > >content in > >> > >>> an RST, is > >in > >> > > >> > >>> the text of the spec. > >> > >>> > >> > >>> On the call today it was claimed that these dependencies were > >> > >>> expressed in the WS-Trust schema and that doesn?t seem > >to be the > >> > > case. > >> > >>> > >> > >>> -Greg > >> > >>> > >> > >>> On 3/7/07 1:55 PM, "Anthony Nadalin" <drsecure@us.ibm.com> > >> > >>> wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >>> I don't think that is quite the case, we need a normative > >reference > >> > >>> to resolve wsp:Policy, so where are we to find this, so the > >binding > >> > >>> is normative now as an explicit namespace is used > >> > >>> > >> > >>> Anthony Nadalin | Work 512.838.0085 | Cell 512.289.4122 [image > >> > >>> removed] Greg Whitehead <greg.whitehead@hp.com> > >> > >>> > >> > >> > >> > >>> Greg Whitehead <greg.whitehead@hp.com> 03/07/2007 12:01 PM > >> > >>> [image removed] To [image removed] > ><ws-sx@lists.oasis-open.org> > >> > >>> [image removed] cc [image removed] [image removed] Subject > >> > >>> [image > >removed] > >> > >>> [ws-sx] WS-Policy and WS-Trust [image removed] [image > >removed] I > >> > >>> just > >> > > > >> > >>> took a look at ws-trust-1.3.xsd and the content model for RST > >> > >>> and RSTR is already <xs:any> (the wsp namespace is declared in > >> > >>> the xsd file, > >> > >> but > >> > >>> it is ONLY used in comments). > >> > >>> > >> > >>> So, for what it's worth, the only binding to a particular > >> > >>> version > >of > >> > > >> > >>> WS-Policy is in the normative text of the spec. > >> > >>> > >> > >>> -Greg > >> > >>> > >> > >>> > >> > >> > >> > >>> > >> > >> > >> > >>> > >> > >> > >> > >>> > >> > >> > >> > > > >> > > >> > > > > >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]