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

Re: Policy expressions with no wire manifestation

From: Sergey Beryozkin <sergey.beryozkin@iona.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2006 10:35:13 +0100
Message-ID: <003e01c6dc98$12d5d0a0$3901020a@sberyoz>
To: "Sergey Beryozkin" <sergey.beryozkin@iona.com>, "Anthony Nadalin" <drsecure@us.ibm.com>
Cc: <public-ws-policy@w3.org>, <public-ws-policy-request@w3.org>
Hi there

That was a response in a hurry so I take it back. Before flooding the group concalls with trivial issues I'd rather attempt to make my question as clear as possible. Note that I may indeed be confused, but if so then I'd appreciate an answer which would help.

Consider this example :

<wsp:Policy>
   <wsp:ExactlyOnce>
         <oasis:QOSGuarantee>
              <NeverFails/>
              <TheBestServiceInThisCategory verifiedBy="..."/>
         <oasis:QOSGuarantee>
   <wsp/ExactlyOnce>
<wsp:Policy>

This is an example of a policy with a single alternative. This alternative contains non-optional assertions
defined by a policy profile spec published a month ago. These assertions have no wire manifestations.
A ws-policy aware (requester) entity whose runtime has not been updated yet to recognize <oasis:QOSGuarantee> is about to start communicating with the service which advertizes this policy. 

Given the fact that it's likely ws-policy aware requesters will refuse to start talking to a service should they fail to support the above policy and that the fact whether this requester supports this policy or not will have no effect on the actual communication with the service this policy attached to, my understanding is that such assertions with no wire manifestations SHOULD be marked as wsp:optional :

<wsp:Policy>
   <wsp:ExactlyOnce>
         <oasis:QOSGuarantee wsp:optional="true">
              <!-- -->
         <oasis:QOSGuarantee>
   <wsp/ExactlyOnce>
<wsp:Policy>

This means a requester may use this policy for a service selection but doesn't need to refuse talking to this service should it fail to recognize the policy.

Does it make sense ? 
What is the group's position on this issue ?

Thanks

Sergey Beryozkin
Iona Technologies
Received on Wednesday, 20 September 2006 09:34:01 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:20:41 GMT