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

I believe we have always intended that the "none" URI is acceptable for any response EPR.
 
I wonder if we need another assertion to state that the "none" URI is explicitly not allowed? I'd strongly prefer that it be an assertion that "none" is NOT acceptable, rather than have an assertion that it was acceptable (because it is permitted all the time at the moment). Then if you specify AnonResponse + NoneUnacceptable you would be insisting upon the Anon URI (because the None URI is forbidden).
 
Why do I think I may regret asking this question?
 
Tony Rogers
CA, Inc
Senior Architect, Development
tony.rogers@ca.com
co-chair UDDI TC at OASIS
co-chair WS-Desc WG at W3C

________________________________

From: public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org on behalf of Anish Karmarkar
Sent: Mon 16-Apr-07 12:55
To: public-ws-addressing@w3.org 
Subject: Policy alternatives, negation, [Non]AnonResponse assertion and the none URI




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
used?

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.

-Anish
--