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

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

From: Anish Karmarkar <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 11:14:49 -0700
Message-ID: <4623BD19.1000305@oracle.com>
To: "Rogers, Tony" <Tony.Rogers@ca.com>
CC: public-ws-addressing@w3.org

Rogers, Tony wrote:
> I believe we have always intended that the "none" URI is acceptable for 
> any response EPR.
>  

That is exactly the issue. Because of this, the assertions become 
overlapping. When one brings in the negation effect because of 
alternatives, this results in self-contradiction.

-Anish
--

> 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 <mailto: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
> --
> 
> 
> 
Received on Monday, 16 April 2007 18:16:30 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:35:17 GMT