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

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

From: Ashok Malhotra <ashok.malhotra@oracle.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 16:36:12 -0700
To: "Anish Karmarkar" <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com>
CC: "public-ws-addressing@w3.org" <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>, "ws policy" <public-ws-policy@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20070416163612287.00000003048@amalhotr-pc>

If you have a Policy that says Assertion A and B then you have to do A and B.  Since it says nothing about C, you may or may not do C.  

However, if A,B and C are all in the Policy Vocabulary (the assertions contained in the Policy) and you select an alternative from the Policy that contains only A and B, you may not do C.  Thus, it is a form of negation.

All the best, Ashok

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Anish Karmarkar [mailto:Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com]
> Sent: Monday, April 16, 2007 2:41 PM
> To: Ashok Malhotra
> Cc: public-ws-addressing@w3.org; ws policy
> Subject: Re: Policy alternatives, negation, [Non]AnonResponse assertion
> and the none URI
> 
> 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 23:37:17 GMT

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