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: 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>
Message-id: <4546220E.2050006@Sun.COM>

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 GMT

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