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

Re: optionality and provider-only orthogonal

From: Fabian Ritzmann <Fabian.Ritzmann@Sun.COM>
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 02:50:40 +0300
To: Frederick Hirsch <frederick.hirsch@nokia.com>
Cc: ext Ashok Malhotra <ashok.malhotra@oracle.com>, "public-ws-policy@w3.org" <public-ws-policy@w3.org>
Message-id: <453FF850.9080009@Sun.COM>

Hi,

What I am still missing very much from this discussion is an 
acknowledgment that there may be many more roles than just provider / 
consumer involved. What makes sense in this very simple one client 
talking to one web service scenario right now might not work in more 
complex scenarios. Moreover, it hasn't been worked out what implications 
an assertion class like "advisory" has on intersection and merging.

Fabian


Frederick Hirsch wrote:
>
> Ashok
>
> makes sense, (was focused on provider, but can apply to both as you note)
>
>  My goal was to avoid expectation of action based on the knowledge of 
> "local" but simply to flag the fact that not wire impact, local to one 
> party (e.g. provider).
>
> regards, Frederick
>
> Frederick Hirsch
> Nokia
>
>
> On Oct 25, 2006, at 4:24 PM, ext Ashok Malhotra wrote:
>
>> 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 23:50:38 GMT

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