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

Here is the relevant text from the Policy Framework document:

[Definition: A policy vocabulary is the set of all policy assertion types used in a policy.] ... When an assertion whose type is part of the policy's vocabulary is not included in a policy alternative, the policy alternative without the assertion type indicates that the assertion will not be applied in the context of the attached policy subject.

All the best, Ashok
> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org [mailto:public-ws-addressing-
> request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Anish Karmarkar
> Sent: Monday, April 16, 2007 9:56 AM
> 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 20:34:13 UTC