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

RE: optionality and provider-only orthogonal

From: Ashok Malhotra <ashok.malhotra@oracle.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 13:24:55 -0700
To: "Frederick Hirsch" <frederick.hirsch@nokia.com>, "public-ws-policy@w3.org" <public-ws-policy@w3.org>
CC: "Hirsch Frederick" <frederick.hirsch@nokia.com>
Message-ID: <20061025132455951.00000002912@amalhotr-pc>

Frederick:
I agree that ...

> In other words treat optionality and provider-only as 
> orthogonal 

But why provider-only?  If we agree on an attribute to indicate that
an assertion applies only to holder of the policy it can apply in any
direction, be that provider or requester.  Thus , 'local'.

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: Wednesday, October 25, 2006 1:13 PM
> To: public-ws-policy@w3.org
> Cc: Hirsch Frederick
> Subject: optionality and provider-only orthogonal
> 
> 
> I think I agree with what Umit said during the call, perhaps 
> we should flag assertions that only apply to the provider, 
> perhaps with a "provider-only" attribute.  This is 
> declarative of the fact that this assertion has no wire 
> impact and only states that the assertion applies to the 
> provider. Unlike "local" and "advisory" this does not attempt 
> to imply how a client should behave knowing this information.
> 
> In other words treat optionality and provider-only as 
> orthogonal (especially since optionality is about policy 
> alternatives).
> 
> regards, Frederick
> 
> Frederick Hirsch
> Nokia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
Received on Wednesday, 25 October 2006 20:26:47 GMT

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