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: Frederick Hirsch <frederick.hirsch@nokia.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2006 14:10:59 -0400
Message-Id: <B8F117BE-34B3-4B14-9B36-3715B8BB8407@nokia.com>
Cc: Frederick Hirsch <frederick.hirsch@nokia.com>, "Paul Cotton" <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, "Sergey Beryozkin" <sergey.beryozkin@iona.com>, "public-ws-policy@w3.org" <public-ws-policy@w3.org>
To: ext Ashok Malhotra <ashok.malhotra@oracle.com>

this is what I was trying to suggest with wsp:advisory:

client does not need to include in intersection algorithm, but  
optionality is not meaningful.

regards, Frederick

Frederick Hirsch
Nokia


On Oct 6, 2006, at 6:48 PM, ext Ashok Malhotra wrote:

> I'm sorry, but I disagree with this direction.  wsp:Optional is  
> orthogonal to assertions that
> that have no behavioral requirements (or do not affect the wire  
> format).
>
> wsp:Optional is used to indicate that an assertion may or may not  
> be used.  For assertions
> that do not affect the wire format this has no meaning.  These  
> assertions are in some sense
> just advertising.  The provider says "I will keep yr information  
> confidential" -- well fine, but how
> would Optional apply to such an assertion or, more strongly, make  
> sense with such an assertion.
> Would you want two alternatives that say keep it confidential and  
> don't keep it confidential?
> OK.  If you want that you can say that but that has no relation to  
> whether the assertion impacts
> the wire format or not.
>
> I support an attribute that marks such assertions as "non- 
> operational" and so takes them out
> of the intersection algorithm.  This would simplify policy processing.
>
> All the best, Ashok
>
>
>
> From: public-ws-policy-request@w3.org [mailto:public-ws-policy- 
> request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Paul Cotton
> Sent: Friday, October 06, 2006 10:57 AM
> To: Sergey Beryozkin; public-ws-policy@w3.org
> Subject: RE: NEW ISSUE :Clarify usage of assertions with no  
> behavioral requirements on the requeste
>
> >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 Monday, 9 October 2006 18:14:39 GMT

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