W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-addressing@w3.org > April 2007

Policy alternatives, negation, [Non]AnonResponse assertion and the none URI

From: Anish Karmarkar <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 09:55:56 -0700
Message-ID: <4623AA9C.1030706@oracle.com>
To: "public-ws-addressing@w3.org " <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>

There is view among the WS-Policy wonks (not sure how widely accepted 
this is or whether the WS-Policy specs explicitly calls this out) that 
when there are alternatives present and the selected alternative does 
not contain an assertion X but another alternative does, then the effect 
  of such a selection consists of negation of X.

We have two assertions AnonResponse and NonAnonResponse assertions. Both 
of them require that the 'none' URI be allowed for the response EPR. 
Does that mean that negation of any of these implies 'none' must not be 

If so, that is a problem, none is useful for things like one-way 
operations that don't use the response EPR for that MEP.

Additionally, if one has two alternatives one with AnonResponse only and 
one with NonAnonResponse only, then that would be self-contradictory.

Received on Monday, 16 April 2007 16:57:31 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:04:16 UTC