- From: Fabian Ritzmann <Fabian.Ritzmann@Sun.COM>
- Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2006 18:02:22 +0200
- To: Ashok Malhotra <ashok.malhotra@oracle.com>
- Cc: Frederick Hirsch <frederick.hirsch@nokia.com>, "public-ws-policy@w3.org" <public-ws-policy@w3.org>
Ashok Malhotra wrote: > Fabian: > Assertions marked as 'advisory' are removed before intersection > and/or merging. > Don't they still carry a meaning to the client after merging/intersection? Fabian >> -----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 Monday, 30 October 2006 16:02:16 UTC