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 17:23:26 -0700
To: "Fabian Ritzmann" <Fabian.Ritzmann@Sun.COM>, "Frederick Hirsch" <frederick.hirsch@nokia.com>
CC: "public-ws-policy@w3.org" <public-ws-policy@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20061025172326298.00000002912@amalhotr-pc>

Fabian:
Assertions marked as 'advisory' are removed before intersection
and/or merging.

All the best, Ashok
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-ws-policy-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:public-ws-policy-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Fabian Ritzmann
> Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2006 4:51 PM
> To: Frederick Hirsch
> Cc: ext Ashok Malhotra; public-ws-policy@w3.org
> Subject: Re: optionality and provider-only orthogonal
> 
> 
> 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 Thursday, 26 October 2006 00:25:43 GMT

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