Folks,
A comment on one of Rich's points:
" Also,
question on the above: wouldn't it make sense to have
"exactlyOnce" and the other reliability intents be qualifiers
to
to a parent "reliability" intent? (If so, I could submit
new issue,
if not, then this is just a typo fix)"
Ah well, this was a debating point when
the reliability intents were
first created. The way that Dave
has them is correct. Of course, that
is not to say that the organisation
of those intents is not debateable
- Rich is certainly free to raise an
issue to change things.
I would ask for good reasons to make
a change, if it is merely cosmetic.
Yours, Mike.
Strategist - Emerging Technologies, SCA & SDO.
Co Chair OASIS SCA Assembly TC.
IBM Hursley Park, Mail Point 146, Winchester, SO21 2JN, Great Britain.
Phone & FAX: +44-1962-818014 Mobile: +44-7802-467431
Email:
"Rich.Levinson"
<>
30/06/2008 01:45
To
Mike Edwards/UK/IBM@IBMGB
cc
OASIS Policy <>
Subject
Re: [sca-policy] Issue 26 - security
policy schema change - updated proposal
Based on action from 6/23 conf call I am providing
feedback on this proposal.
Just a couple of minor comments:
line 46: needs trailing "/" in: " <allow roles="listOfNCNames"/>
"
line 93: same as line 46, needs trailing "/"
lines 101-102 says "... MUST satisfy the following security
management
requirements." and then the section ends. This
is confusing. It appeared
to me that the reqts were left out, but see next comments:
line 102: I suggest it should be terminated with a ":"
and then apply the next
suggestion for lines 104-127.
lines 104-127: I suggest making this a list of 4 bullets rather
than
4 section numbers.
Additional comment I noticed in the main FW document, wd5,
line 391:
provides="authentication.message
exactlyOne"
should probably read:
provides="authentication.message
exactlyOnce"
Also, question on the above: wouldn't it make sense to have
"exactlyOnce" and the other reliability intents be qualifiers
to
to a parent "reliability" intent? (If so, I could submit
new issue,
if not, then this is just a typo fix)
Thanks,
Rich
Mike Edwards wrote:
Dave,
Yes, cranky and foaming at the mouth......
...but I can't resist easy targets:
Line 56 has "</denyAll> ",
which I believe should read "<denyAll/>"
Much more wickedly, I suspect that the maxOccurs attributes added in the
schema between 202 and 235
may need revisiting, but here I defer to the XSD geniuses.
Yours, Mike.
Strategist - Emerging Technologies, SCA & SDO.
Co Chair OASIS SCA Assembly TC.
IBM Hursley Park, Mail Point 146, Winchester, SO21 2JN, Great Britain.
Phone & FAX: +44-1962-818014 Mobile: +44-7802-467431
Email:
David Booz <>
19/06/2008 21:24
To
cc
Subject
[sca-policy] Issue 26 - security policy
schema change - updated proposal
This closes another of my AIs from the F2F, and creates more fodder for
Mike E :-) He's so cranky these days.
(See attached file: Issue26_proposal_v2.doc)
Dave Booz
STSM, SCA and WebSphere Architecture
Co-Chair OASIS SCA-Policy TC
"Distributed objects first, then world hunger"
Poughkeepsie, NY (845)-435-6093 or 8-295-6093
e-mail:
http://washome.austin.ibm.com/xwiki/bin/view/SCA2Team/WebHome[attachment
"Issue26_proposal_v2.doc" deleted by Mike Edwards/UK/IBM] ---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
generates this mail. You may a link to this group and all your TCs
in OASIS
at:
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
Unless stated otherwise above:
IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number
741598.
Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6
3AU
Unless stated otherwise above:
IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number
741598.
Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6
3AU
