RE: Non-anon extensibility and policy intersection

Maybe the way to think about this is to say that a subtype (mailto: only) always matches its parent type (non-anon).  In other words, an unqualified assertion matches all its qualified variants.

All the best, Ashok

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org [mailto:public-ws-addressing-
> request@w3.org] On Behalf Of David Hull
> Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 2:28 PM
> To: public-ws-addressing@w3.org
> Subject: Non-anon extensibility and policy intersection
> 
> 
> A while ago I suggested that we have a way of saying things like
> "non-anon response endpoints must be mailto: (or fit some other
> pattern)".  Our decision was to leave this out of scope, which is fine
> with me, but we want to be sure not to disallow it.
> 
> Suppose I make an assertion, basically "the service support non-anon",
> generically.  Later, you want to refine that by saying, "Well, actually,
> the service only supports mailto: non-anon".  As I understand it, policy
> intersections are aimed at this sort of thing.
> 
> However, if I intersect a policy that says "non-anon allowed" with one
> that says "mailto: only", I get the empty set, since the two assertions
> are different.  I would like to get "mailto: only".
> 
>

Received on Monday, 23 April 2007 21:54:23 UTC