W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-policy@w3.org > October 2006

RE: NEW ISSUE :Clarify usage of assertions with no behavioral requirements on the requeste

From: Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>
Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2006 10:56:44 -0700
To: Sergey Beryozkin <sergey.beryozkin@iona.com>, "public-ws-policy@w3.org" <public-ws-policy@w3.org>
Message-ID: <4D66CCFC0B64BA4BBD79D55F6EBC22571BFD553485@NA-EXMSG-C103.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
>1. Add an example to a primer and/or policy guidelines

Can you formulate your required example even in outline form?

>2. Explain why policy authors should make such assertions optional for those requesters which are not aware of them.

I assume you want this text in the primer and/or guidelines doc.  Is that correct?

If so can you offer proposed text?

> 3. Make any necessary changes to the wsp:optional related wording so that a policy author can use wsp:optional as a recognized but not a workaround way to mark such assertions.

Can you please clarify what you mean by "so that a policy author can use wsp:optional as a recognized but not a workaround to mark such assertions"?

Are you saying the Framework should warn policy assertion authors from using wsp:optional to describe "assertions with no behavioural requirements on the requester"?

/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




________________________________
From: public-ws-policy-request@w3.org [mailto:public-ws-policy-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Sergey Beryozkin
Sent: October 6, 2006 6:27 AM
To: Sergey Beryozkin; public-ws-policy@w3.org
Subject: Re: NEW ISSUE :Clarify usage of assertions with no behavioral requirements on the requeste

Hello,

This is the resolution I think would adequately address this issue :

1. Add an example to a primer and/or policy guidelines
2. Explain why policy authors should make such assertions optional for those requesters which are not aware of them.
3. Make any necessary changes to the wsp:optional related wording so that a policy author can use wsp:optional as a recognized but not a workaround way to mark such assertions.

Thanks, Sergey

http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=3789

Target : WS-Policy Framework and policy guidelines

Justification :

There's a class of policy assertions which have no behavioral requirements on the requester but can be still usefully processed by
requesters which are aware
of what assertions mean.
For example : <oasis:Replicatable/>

An assertion like this one can be a useful source of information for requesters. Providers having expected properties like
<oasis:Replicatable/> can be chosen/searched.
At the same time, given the fact assertions like <oasis:Replicatable/>
have no behavioral requirements on the provider it's important to ensure
policy-aware clients which have no knowledge of these assertions can proceed
consuming the service advertsing this assertion.

Currently the way to advertise such an assertion is to use a normal form with two policy alternatives(simple case), with only one
alternative containing this assertion thus making it optional, or, in other words, giving a chance to requesters to ignore it.
Such normal form expression is equivalent to a compact form with the optional assertion marked with wsp:optional attribute with a
value 'true'.

However, at the moment the primer recommends using wsp:optional when one needs to mark asssertions which identify optional
capabilities/requirements with behavioral requirements on a requester should the requester wishes to use it.

Thus marking assertions like <oasis:Replicatable/> with wsp:optional is considered to be a wrong approach.

Proposal :

Clarify the text describing the optionality in the policy guidelines and in the Framework spec on how a policy author should use
assertions like
<oasis:Replicatable/>.
It's important that assertions like these can be usefully interpreted by knowledgeble requesters and safely ignored by requesters
unaware of them.
Received on Friday, 6 October 2006 17:57:16 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:20:42 GMT