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 13:38:53 -0700
Message-ID: <4623DEDD.4000009@oracle.com>
To: tom@coastin.com
CC: "Rogers, Tony" <Tony.Rogers@ca.com>, public-ws-addressing@w3.org

Not sure, I agree.

If AnonResponse means 'anon' uri and 'none' uri are required. Then 
negation would imply no-anon uri or none uri.

-Anish
--

Tom Rutt wrote:
> 
> since none means no reply, I do not think we have negation problem with it.
> 
> Tom
> 
> 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
>>> -- 
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
> 
Received on Monday, 16 April 2007 20:40:34 GMT

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