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

Re: Policy expressions with no wire manifestation

From: Maryann Hondo <mhondo@us.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2006 09:17:19 -0400
To: "Sergey Beryozkin" <sergey.beryozkin@iona.com>
Cc: Anthony Nadalin <drsecure@us.ibm.com>, public-ws-policy@w3.org, public-ws-policy-request@w3.org, "Sergey Beryozkin" <sergey.beryozkin@iona.com>
Message-ID: <OFD4957CC5.A0D381D9-ON872571EF.004804DC-852571EF.0048D080@us.ibm.com>
I responded to your other mail ...so this is a bit of a repetition.

In the guidelines document, Umit and I have attempted to capture 
"observations" about the use of optional, and this might
be a case where it would be useful.  I would note that if you're "using 
the assertion for selection", it could 
imply that you know what it is. Whether or not it is required on the wire 
is a facet of the behavior associated with the assertion.
Each set of authors is given a set of tools by the specifications, but the 
authors need to craft the assertions.


"Sergey Beryozkin" <sergey.beryozkin@iona.com> 
Sent by: public-ws-policy-request@w3.org
09/20/2006 05:35 AM

"Sergey Beryozkin" <sergey.beryozkin@iona.com>, Anthony 
<public-ws-policy@w3.org>, <public-ws-policy-request@w3.org>
Re: Policy expressions with no wire manifestation

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 :
              <TheBestServiceInThisCategory verifiedBy="..."/>
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 :
         <oasis:QOSGuarantee wsp:optional="true">
              <!-- -->
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 ?
Sergey Beryozkin
Iona Technologies
Received on Wednesday, 20 September 2006 13:15:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:38:27 UTC