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: Ashok Malhotra <ashok.malhotra@oracle.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2006 14:11:47 -0700
To: "Frederick Hirsch" <frederick.hirsch@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>
Message-ID: <20061009141147311.00000003536@amalhotr-pc>

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

Prasad also sent a note saying that he supports such an attribute.
Paul:  Can we get the WG to consider this?

All the best, Ashok
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-ws-policy-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:public-ws-policy-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Frederick Hirsch
> Sent: Monday, October 09, 2006 11:11 AM
> To: ext Ashok Malhotra
> Cc: Frederick Hirsch; Paul Cotton; Sergey Beryozkin; 
> public-ws-policy@w3.org
> Subject: Re: NEW ISSUE :Clarify usage of assertions with no 
> behavioral requirements on the requeste
> 
> 
> 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 21:12:18 GMT

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