Re: NEW ISSUE: New Attribute keyword to identify 'local' policies #3721

Hi

"Overloading the wsp:optional marker just complicates the matter, because
it provides a cop-out for not understanding the semantics of the
assertion by creating an alternative that only a class of clients will
understand and will engage with."
That's what wsp:optional is all about from a requester's perspective, isn't it ?
It translates to a normal form expression with two policy alternatives,
a class of clients which can not understand one alternative can choose to ignore it and
select a diff alternative.

"In terms of logging, I do not believe that it should be implemented by
optional"

+1. It has to be a wsp:local (custom:local) and stripped out out of the WSDL if possible (if custom:local then must be stripped), 
otherwise ignored by a requester.

Put wsp:local on assertion which can not be of interest to requesters, otherwise use normal assertions, doesn't matter optional or 
not.

There's no way one can prevent a provider from misusing wsp:optional by exposing an assertion like 
<custom:useLocalTimerForServerLogging/>.

Hence I believe wsp:optional wording should be improved and simplified, with a clear direction to policy authors.

Thanks, Sergey