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

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

From: Tom Rutt <tom@coastin.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 15:52:56 -0400
To: Anish Karmarkar <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com>
Cc: "Rogers, Tony" <Tony.Rogers@ca.com>, public-ws-addressing@w3.org
Message-id: <4623D418.3070508@coastin.com>

since none means no reply, I do not think we have negation problem with it.


Anish Karmarkar wrote:
> 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
>> -- 

Tom Rutt	email: tom@coastin.com; trutt@us.fujitsu.com
Tel: +1 732 801 5744          Fax: +1 732 774 5133
Received on Monday, 16 April 2007 19:53:20 UTC

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