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 14:41:24 -0700
Message-ID: <4623ED84.1090706@oracle.com>
To: Ashok Malhotra <ashok.malhotra@oracle.com>
CC: "public-ws-addressing@w3.org" <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>, ws policy <public-ws-policy@w3.org>

Ashok,

We discussed this at the ws-addr call today and are waiting to get 
clarification from ws-policy WG on the phrase "... assertion will not be 
applied ...," as to its meaning. It is not clear, to at least some 
(many?) member of ws-addr wg, what it means.

We decided to postpone a resolution on this (and related issue) till we 
get some direction/resolution from ws-policy wg.

-Anish
--

Ashok Malhotra wrote:
> 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 21:43:03 GMT

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