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

RE: Suggested text to close Bug 3602

From: Yalcinalp, Umit <umit.yalcinalp@sap.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2006 08:32:10 -0700
Message-ID: <2BA6015847F82645A9BB31C7F9D6416502397998@uspale20.pal.sap.corp>
To: "Maryann Hondo" <mhondo@us.ibm.com>, "Sverdlov, Yakov" <Yakov.Sverdlov@ca.com>
Cc: "Ashok Malhotra" <ashok.malhotra@oracle.com>, "Monica J. Martin" <Monica.Martin@Sun.COM>, <public-ws-policy@w3.org>
I like the Option 3 text. 
 
--umit
 


________________________________

	From: public-ws-policy-request@w3.org
[mailto:public-ws-policy-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Maryann Hondo
	Sent: Wednesday, Sep 27, 2006 5:50 AM
	To: Sverdlov, Yakov
	Cc: Ashok Malhotra; Monica J. Martin; public-ws-policy@w3.org
	Subject: RE: Suggested text to close Bug 3602
	
	

	Yakov and Ashok. 
	
	I think we're moving to consensus but I'd like you to consider
this alternative text...... 
	
	Maryann 
	
	Option 3: 
	
	When an assertion whose type is part of the policy's vocabulary
is not included in a policy alternative, the policy alternative without
the assertion type indicates that the assertion will not be applied in
the context of the attached policy subject. 
	
	
	
	Option 1 ( from below) 
	"When an assertion whose type is part of the policy 
	> vocabulary but is not included in a policy alternative, the 
	> behavior indicated by that policy assertion is not applied to 
	> a subject in that policy alternative" 
	
	
	
"Sverdlov, Yakov" <Yakov.Sverdlov@ca.com> 

09/19/2006 01:23 PM 

To
"Ashok Malhotra" <ashok.malhotra@oracle.com>, "Monica J. Martin"
<Monica.Martin@Sun.COM>, Maryann Hondo/Austin/IBM@IBMUS 
cc
<public-ws-policy@w3.org> 
Subject
RE: Suggested text to close Bug 3602

	




	+1 to Ashok
	
	Thanks,
	Yakov
	
	-----Original Message-----
	From: Ashok Malhotra [mailto:ashok.malhotra@oracle.com] 
	Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2006 11:33 AM
	To: Sverdlov, Yakov; Monica J. Martin; mhondo@us.ibm.com
	Cc: public-ws-policy@w3.org
	Subject: RE: Suggested text to close Bug 3602
	
	Yakov:
	I prefer option 1 because it makes it clear that the assertion
should
	NOT
	be applied.  We should also add a pointer here to an example
such as the
	one
	I proposed at the f2f which would appear later in the document
after
	optional
	and alternative has been defined.
	
	All the best, Ashok
	
	
	> -----Original Message-----
	> From: Sverdlov, Yakov [mailto:Yakov.Sverdlov@ca.com] 
	> Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2006 8:25 AM
	> To: Monica J. Martin; Ashok Malhotra; mhondo@us.ibm.com
	> Cc: public-ws-policy@w3.org
	> Subject: RE: Suggested text to close Bug 3602
	> 
	> Action:
	> http://www.w3.org/2006/09/14-ws-policy-minutes.html#action01
	> 
	> I think in the spirit of the policy assertion definition, we 
	> may consider referencing the behavior represented by the
assertion. 
	> 
	> Modify the proposal in the email below from:
	> "When an assertion whose type is part of the policy 
	> vocabulary but is not included in a policy alternative, the 
	> provider does not apply that policy assertion in that policy 
	> alternative."
	> 
	> To:
	> Option 1:
	> "When an assertion whose type is part of the policy 
	> vocabulary but is not included in a policy alternative, the 
	> behavior indicated by that policy assertion is not applied to 
	> a subject in that policy alternative"
	> 
	> Option 2:
	> "When an assertion whose type is part of the policy 
	> vocabulary but is not included in a policy alternative, the 
	> behavior [of an entity] indicated by that policy assertion is 
	> considered as undefined in that policy alternative"
	> 
	> 
	> Regards,
	> 
	> Yakov Sverdlov
	> CA
	> 
	> -----Original Message-----
	> From: public-ws-policy-request@w3.org
	> [mailto:public-ws-policy-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Monica
J. Martin
	> Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2006 11:49 AM
	> To: Ashok Malhotra
	> Cc: public-ws-policy@w3.org
	> Subject: Re: Suggested text to close Bug 3602
	> Importance: High
	> 
	> 
	> 
	> ><new text>
	> >For example, if there is a policy with an assertion marked
with
	> "optional='true'" this puts the assertion in the vocabulary 
	> of the policy.  When this policy is normalized the assertion 
	> appears in one alternative and not in the other.  If the 
	> alternative that does not include the assertion is chosen 
	> then it is explicitly prohibited to apply the assertion as 
	> the assertion is part of the policy vocabulary.
	> >  
	> >
	> mm1: Ashok, where this text falls in the specification, it is 
	> premature to discuss wsp:Optional, normalization and XML 
	> representation. In addition, this text duplicates existing 
	> material.  We could revise the existing text in Section 3.2:
	> 
	>     Change from: An assertion whose type is part of the
policy's
	>     vocabulary but is not included in an alternative is
explicitly
	>     prohibited by the alternative.
	>     Change to: When an assertion whose type is part of the
policy
	>     vocabulary but is not included in a policy alternative, 
	> the provider
	>     does not apply that policy assertion in that policy
alternative.
	> 
	> An option to consider rather than another example is to 
	> reference further sections and include more detail in the 
	> Guideline and/or Primer documents. Thanks.
	> 
	> 
	> 
	> 
	> 
	
	
	
	
Received on Wednesday, 27 September 2006 15:28:41 GMT

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