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

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

From: Rogers, Tony <Tony.Rogers@ca.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2007 23:28:15 +1000
Message-ID: <BEE2BD647C052D4FA59B42F5E2D946B372009B@AUSYMS12.ca.com>
To: "Anish Karmarkar" <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com>, "Paul Fremantle" <pzfreo@gmail.com>
Cc: <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>
I suspect that you misunderstand the point of the None URI - it is not for one-way MEPs (they don't have response EPRs, so no need for a None URI) - it is for things like a Request-Response MEP when the requestor wishes to say "do not send me the response - throw it away". It is like having a shell script and directing the output of a command to /dev/null.
 
Does that help?
 
Tony Rogers
CA, Inc
Senior Architect, Development
tony.rogers@ca.com

________________________________

From: Anish Karmarkar [mailto:Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com]
Sent: Mon 16-Apr-07 17:58
To: Paul Fremantle
Cc: Rogers, Tony; public-ws-addressing@w3.org
Subject: Re: Policy alternatives, negation, [Non]AnonResponse assertion and the none URI



Paul Fremantle wrote:
>
> 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.

Why should an endpoint that has only req-res operations accept none uri
for the response EPRs?

-Anish

> 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
>> >> > --
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 17 April 2007 13:31:54 GMT

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