W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-policy-qa@w3.org > May 2007

[Bug 4559] Versioning: Requests for Expired Services

From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
Date: Wed, 16 May 2007 01:42:07 +0000
CC:
To: public-ws-policy-qa@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1Ho8Wl-0005MW-LM@wiggum.w3.org>

http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=4559

           Summary: Versioning: Requests for Expired Services
           Product: WS-Policy
           Version: FPWD
          Platform: PC
        OS/Version: Windows XP
            Status: NEW
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P2
         Component: Primer
        AssignedTo: fsasaki@w3.org
        ReportedBy: monica.martin@sun.com
         QAContact: public-ws-policy-qa@w3.org
                CC: fabian.ritzmann@sun.com


Target: Primer, Section 3.8.3, hypothetical versioning text and examples with
table.

Description:
When wsp:Ignorable is used, it is possible that an unaware clientcould attempt
to engage a service with an expiry date, whereby a server would react. This was
a discussion point as a result of Issue 4414. Opening this issue closes Action
292.[1] 

Actions:
1. Account for this possibility in the text that already exists in the accepted
and integrated text and table in Section 3.8.3.[2]
2. Also revise table headings to be more succinct and meaningful. A key may
also be suggested (Discretion is left to the editors on the use of a 'Key').

Proposal
1.
   Change from: If CompanyX adds the hypothetical EndOfLife policy
   assertion with an ignorable attribute and does mark the assertion
   with wsp:Optional="true", then clients using strict mode who do not
   understand the hypothetical EndOfLife assertion with the ignorable
   information will still be compatible with the alternative that does
   not contain the hypothetical EndOfLife policy assertion as per the
   intersection rules <<and the server can return an error if the
   request is received after the expiry date.>>

   Change to: If CompanyX adds the hypothetical EndOfLife policy
   assertion with an ignorable attribute and does mark the assertion
   with wsp:Optional="true", then clients using strict mode who do not
   understand the hypothetical EndOfLife assertion with the ignorable
   information will still be compatible with the alternative that does
   not contain the hypothetical EndOfLife policy assertion as per the
   intersection rules.

   <<When wsp:Ignorable="true" is used, clients that are unaware of the
   hypothetical EndOfLife assertion may make more requests for expired
   services. This could result in servers generating Faults if the
   request is received after the expiry date.>>

2. See [3]

* Required [Was: wsp:Ignorable="false", wsp:Optional="false"]
* Required and Ignorable (for intersection) [Was: wsp:Ignorable="true",
wsp:Optional="false"]
* Optional [Was: wsp:Ignorable="false", wsp:Optional="true"]
* Optional and Ignorable (for intersection) [Was: wsp:Optional="true",
wsp:Ignorable="true", wsp:Optional="true"]

[1] Action 292: Evaluate whether a new issue needs to be contributed related to
resolution of Issue 4414. Action 292 for Dave Orchard, Monica J. Martin
See: http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/wspolicy/actions/292
[2]
http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2006/ws/policy/ws-policy-primer.html?content-type=text/html;%20charset=utf-8#ignorable-and-versioning
[3] For Optional or Ignorable: "Omitting this attribute is semantically
equivalent to including it with a value of false."
See: Framework, Section 4.3.1 (Optional) or Section 4.4 (Ignorable).
http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2006/ws/policy/ws-policy-framework.html?content-type=text/html;%20charset=utf-8#Optional_Policy_Assertions
http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2006/ws/policy/ws-policy-framework.html?content-type=text/html;%20charset=utf-8#ignorable-policy-assertions

Issue submitted by Fabian Ritzmann, MaryAnn Hondo, Dave Orchard and Monica J.
Martin
Received on Wednesday, 16 May 2007 01:51:00 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:21:08 GMT