We definitely need a liaison with the WS Policy WG. Is anyone in the TC
also in WS Policy?
Tony
-----Original Message-----
From: Andrew Hately
[mailto:]
Sent: Tue 24-May-05 2:30
To:
Luc Clement
Cc:
Subject:
Re: [uddi-spec] The need to adopt a policy framework - concerns over the
current approach taken on modeling security/auth
>>
I’m very
concerned about making any recommendations that should (MUST) be expressed
using policy by any other means. I think we should take a step back;
finally take that bold move and adopt WS-Policy; and recast these two TNs
using WS-Policy/PolicyAttachment.
<<
Regardless of
the framework, one of the challenges is that these Technical Notes are
proposing composable/reusable policy pieces. I believe they are
compatible with WS-Policy as they exist today and we would just need to
reference WS-Policy files and we should probably do so. If you are
proposing something deeper in terms of policy framework integration such as
changing the concept of UDDI searching to be based on something deeper than
tModel concept searches, we should discuss this tommorow.
In my opinion the challenge is not picking the
framework or language, it is getting these reviewed by people who can
articulate if we've got the write reusable policy pieces that would be
composable.
Should we form a
liasion with the W3C policy working group to move this forward?
Regards,
Andrew Hately
IBM Software Group, Emerging Technologies
"Luc Clement"
<>
05/22/2005 10:18 PM
To
Andrew
Hately/Austin/IBM@IBMUS
cc
<>
Subject
[uddi-spec] The need
to adopt a policy framework - concerns over the current approach
taken on modeling security/auth
Andrew,
Something hadn’t been sitting well with me with
the approaches you’ve taken on these two TNs
Modeling Web services Security in UDDI:
http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/uddi-spec/download.php/12217/uddi-spec-tc-tn-wssecurity-20040328.doc
Modeling HTTP Access Auth in UDDI: http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/uddi-spec/download.php/11960/uddi-spec-tc-tn-httpauth-20050321.doc
The problem stems from the fact that we’ve yet to
adopt a policy framework for registry and the approach you’ve taken though not
strictly incorrect is only delaying what in my opinion is the inevitable – the
adoption of a policy framework for UDDI.
Had we one, we wouldn’t take
the approach you’ve taken which as far as I’m concerned is the only reasonable
one for you at this point within the current framework – or lack-thereof. That
said, it isn’t reasonable for us to delay adopting a policy framework – dare I
say WS-PolicyAttachment and WS-Policy.
I’m very concerned about
making any recommendations that should (MUST) be expressed using policy
by any other means. I think we should take a step back; finally take that bold
move and adopt WS-Policy; and recast these two TNs using
WS-Policy/PolicyAttachment.
Luc
Luc
Clément | Senior Program Manager | Systinet Corporation |
One van de Graaff Drive Burlington, MA
01803
Phone +1 781.362.1330 |
Mobile +1 978.793.2162 | Fax +1 781.362.1400 |
