RE: [Guidelines] Proposed update to section 4.5 (now 5.5), Design ating Optional Behaviors

Can you identify the new best practises and confirm they were not in the original IBM/MSFT proposal?

/paulc

Paul Cotton, Microsoft Canada
17 Eleanor Drive, Ottawa, Ontario K2E 6A3
Tel: (613) 225-5445 Fax: (425) 936-7329
mailto:Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com





> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-ws-policy-eds-request@w3.org [mailto:public-ws-policy-eds-
> request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Frederick Hirsch
> Sent: April 18, 2007 12:25 PM
> To: Asir Vedamuthu
> Cc: Hirsch Frederick; public-ws-policy-eds
> Subject: Re: [Guidelines] Proposed update to section 4.5 (now 5.5), Design
> ating Optional Behaviors
>
>
> added some best practices based on original text as noted by Paul on
> the WG call.
>
> regards, Frederick
>
> Frederick Hirsch
> Nokia
>
>
> On Apr 18, 2007, at 11:53 AM, ext Asir Vedamuthu wrote:
>
> > Are you proposing any substantial changes to Section 5.5 (old 4.5)?
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Asir S Vedamuthu
> > Microsoft Corporation
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: public-ws-policy-eds-request@w3.org [mailto:public-ws-policy-
> > eds-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Frederick Hirsch
> > Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2007 9:45 PM
> > To: Paul Cotton
> > Cc: Frederick Hirsch; ext Prasad Yendluri; public-ws-policy-eds
> > Subject: Re: [Guidelines] Proposed update to section 4.5 (now 5.5),
> > Design ating Optional Behaviors
> >
> >
> > We discussed this on the editors call and I think we agreed, in
> > keeping with the way we've resolved previous issues, that WG should
> > agree on changes that are more extensive.
> >
> > This is what we've been doing to date, even agreeing on detailed
> > wording in the WG.
> >
> > If we do not see any WG comments then we can go ahead and make these
> > changes without WG approval if you think that is best.
> >
> > regards, Frederick
> >
> > Frederick Hirsch
> > Nokia
> >
> >
> > On Apr 17, 2007, at 8:50 PM, ext Paul Cotton wrote:
> >
> >> Personally I think this would be better discussed by the Editors
> >> until you have a consolidated position to take back to the WG.  In
> >> fact I thought that is what the Editors agreed to do.
> >>
> >> /paulc
> >>
> >> ________________________________________
> >> From: public-ws-policy-eds-request@w3.org [public-ws-policy-eds-
> >> request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Frederick Hirsch
> >> [frederick.hirsch@nokia.com]
> >> Sent: April 17, 2007 3:40 PM
> >> To: ext Prasad Yendluri
> >> Cc: Frederick Hirsch; public-ws-policy-eds
> >> Subject: Re: [Guidelines] Proposed update to section 4.5 (now 5.5),
> >> Design ating Optional Behaviors
> >>
> >> no problem, open discussion on this is fine. I'll respond on the WG
> >> thread.
> >>
> >> regards, Frederick
> >>
> >> Frederick Hirsch
> >> Nokia
> >>
> >>
> >> On Apr 17, 2007, at 5:50 PM, ext Prasad Yendluri wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> My apologies, I did not intend to send my reply to the whole WG.
> >>>
> >>> Somehow I thought we were discussing this within just the editorial
> >>> team.
> >>>
> >>> Did not realize Frederick's note was sent to the WG list.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Regards,
> >>>
> >>> Prasad
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> From: Prasad Yendluri
> >>> Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2007 2:07 PM
> >>> To: 'Frederick Hirsch'; public-ws-policy@w3.org
> >>> Subject: RE: [Guidelines] Proposed update to section 4.5 (now 5.5),
> >>> Designating Optional Behaviors
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Hi Frederick,
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Couple of quick comments.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> 1. Good practice (b) and (d) seem to have the same good practice
> >>> description.
> >>>
> >>> That is lines 28-29 and 62-63 are identical (ref: .pdf w/o diff).
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> 2. Some of these best practices could be applicable on a broader
> >>> scope rather than just
> >>>
> >>> "optional assertions". For example, the following best practice w/o
> >>> optional could be
> >>>
> >>> applicable to WSDL attachment (described in the section that
> >>> follows this one).
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> "Assertion Authors should associate optional assertions with the
> >>> appropriate endpoint,
> >>>
> >>> and right granularity to limit the degree to which optionality
> >>> applies."
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Is it worth rephrasing these to be more generic so that they can
> >>> also be applicable
> >>>
> >>> elsewhere rather than scoping them strictly to optional assertions?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Regards,
> >>>
> >>> Prasad
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>> From: public-ws-policy-request@w3.org [mailto:public-ws-policy-
> >>> request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Frederick Hirsch
> >>> Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2007 8:20 AM
> >>> To: public-ws-policy@w3.org
> >>> Cc: Frederick Hirsch
> >>> Subject: [Guidelines] Proposed update to section 4.5 (now 5.5),
> >>> Designating Optional Behaviors
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> I took an editors action item to revise section 4.5 of the
> >>> Guidelines
> >>>
> >>> (designating optional behaviors) to reflect the approach taken in
> >>> the
> >>>
> >>> Web architecture document, to re-structure as problem statement,
> >>> best
> >>>
> >>> practices and then example. [1]
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> This resulted in a fairly extensive edit so I am sharing the
> >>> revision
> >>>
> >>> with the WG before completing the edits. I added some best practices
> >>>
> >>> based on the original text.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Attached are plain and red-lines, with revised section numbers
> >>> due to
> >>>
> >>> a subsequent change to the documents to add summary section of best
> >>>
> >>> practices at the beginning of the document. (Will probably need to
> >>>
> >>> add informative reference to MTOM assertion)
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> regards, Frederick
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Frederick Hirsch
> >>>
> >>> Nokia
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> [1] <http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2006/ws/policy/ws-policy-
> >>>
> >>> guidelines.html?rev=1.38&content-type=text/html;%
> >>>
> >>> 20charset=iso-8859-1#optional-policy-assertion>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >
> >
>

Received on Wednesday, 18 April 2007 16:54:04 UTC