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

RE: optionality and provider-only orthogonal

From: Sverdlov, Yakov <Yakov.Sverdlov@ca.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 11:01:01 -0400
Message-ID: <ACE36C31EA815A4CBA7EBECA186C0D41DAF4F4@USILMS13.ca.com>
To: "Ashok Malhotra" <ashok.malhotra@oracle.com>, "Frederick Hirsch" <frederick.hirsch@nokia.com>
Cc: <public-ws-policy@w3.org>

+1 to Ashok and Frederick to treat "optionality" and "local" as
orthogonal with the Ashok's qualifier that "local" assertions may be
specified for any entity in interaction. 

I think adding the local attribute will introduce the ownership concept
in the specification, which I initially opposed. At the same, having
this attribute in combination with the policy subject will make it
easier to deal with entity/policy bindings.

Regards,
Yakov Sverdlov
CA

-----Original Message-----
From: public-ws-policy-request@w3.org
[mailto:public-ws-policy-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Ashok Malhotra
Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2006 6:56 PM
To: Frederick Hirsch
Cc: Frederick Hirsch; public-ws-policy@w3.org
Subject: RE: optionality and provider-only orthogonal


Great!  We agree. 

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 2:56 PM
> To: ext Ashok Malhotra
> Cc: Frederick Hirsch; public-ws-policy@w3.org
> Subject: Re: optionality and provider-only orthogonal
> 
> 
> 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 15:01:17 GMT

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