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

Re: ISSUE 3564: Optional Assertions may not be usable in all cir cumstances

From: Sergey Beryozkin <sergey.beryozkin@iona.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2006 12:00:01 +0100
Message-ID: <002901c6e3b6$690ab420$3901020a@sberyoz>
To: "Frederick Hirsch" <frederick.hirsch@nokia.com>, "Christopher B Ferris" <chrisfer@us.ibm.com>
Cc: "Frederick Hirsch" <frederick.hirsch@nokia.com>, "ext Glen Daniels" <gdaniels@progress.com>, <public-ws-policy@w3.org>, <public-ws-policy-request@w3.org>
Hi Chris

"The tricky case comes into play when policy is used to express a provider-only assertion such as 
auditing, which is not manifested on the wire, and which the client really doesn't need to understand/comply with  in order to interact with the service provider. 
I think that the question becomes, do we want/need WS-Policy to be able to handle such cases where a 
policy subject is decorated wth a policy alternative that includes an assertion that is relevant only to 
one of the participants in the interaction/exchange? "

If this provider-only assertion can be understood by the requester and used for selecting this service among other services then yes, I believe it's a normal assertion like any other assertion...

If this provider-only assertion can only be usefully understood by a provider itself then no, I agree. Here's where we believe something like wsp:local could be of help. wsp:local is a marker which tells to a requester this is not you need to worry about...

"What is most important is that we enable the framework such that a provider can communicate to the client those capabilities that it supports and the set of those capabilities that are required for successful interaction from the perspective of both the provider and the consumer of a service. "

+1

Cheers, Sergey
Received on Friday, 29 September 2006 10:59:08 GMT

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