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

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

From: Paul Fremantle <pzfreo@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 22:52:43 +0100
Message-ID: <88f5d710704161452q464b88ddh7a62baad5736ab54@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Anish Karmarkar" <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com>
Cc: "Rogers, Tony" <Tony.Rogers@ca.com>, public-ws-addressing@w3.org

Ok in that case I think it needs to be made clear. I don't think any
new assertions are required. I think any endpoint should accept none.
I just think that needs to be independent of those policy statements.

Paul

On 4/16/07, Anish Karmarkar <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com> wrote:
> Paul Fremantle wrote:
> > Anish
> >
> > I think you are making a logical mistake by associating the
> > acceptability of the none with those assertions. The mistake you are
> > making can be better explained with some analogous logic.
> >
>
> I don't think I'm doing that. You are assuming that the assertions are
> only about anon and non-anon uris. They are not defined that way. The
> assertions talk about that fact that making that assertion => none uris
> must be accepted.
>
> > If I state that it is not true that Paul likes cheese, you can't infer
> > anything about whether I like chocolate!
> >
> > In other words neither assertion should state anything about the
> > acceptability of the none replyto. That should be stated elsewhere.
> >
>
> My point is that the assertions currently do. If they hadn't I would not
> have raised this issue.
>
> To use your analogy, the assertion says:
> Paul likes cheese and paul likes chocolate.
>
> There was a discussion about this where folks said that negation of that
> means 'paul does not like cheese' and I'm merely pointing out that if
> negation means paul does not like cheese then it has to mean that paul
> does not like chocolate as well.
>
> BTW, it is not clear what 'negation' means here. The ws-policy spec IMHO
> is very ambiguous about this.
>
> BTW2, why don't you like coffee? ;-)
>
> > Paul
> >
> >
> >
> > On 4/16/07, Anish Karmarkar <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com> 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
> >> > --
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>


-- 
Paul Fremantle
VP/Technology, WSO2 and OASIS WS-RX TC Co-chair

http://bloglines.com/blog/paulfremantle
paul@wso2.com

"Oxygenating the Web Service Platform", www.wso2.com
Received on Monday, 16 April 2007 21:52:51 GMT

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