Re: Are nested assertions part of the policy vocabulary?

Ashok,
My response is yes.
Maryann



"Ashok Malhotra" <ashok.malhotra@oracle.com> 
Sent by: public-ws-policy-request@w3.org
04/03/2007 03:07 PM

To
"public-ws-policy@w3.org" <public-ws-policy@w3.org>
cc

Subject
Are nested assertions part of the policy vocabulary?






Section 3.2 of Framework says “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.”    Are 
nested assertions included in the policy’s vocabulary?
Consider the following example:
  <wsp:ExactlyOne>
        <wsp:All>
            <wsam:Addressing> <-- supports all response types --> 
Alternative 1
                <wsp:Policy> 
                </wsp:Policy>
            </wsam:Addressing>
        </wsp:All>
        <wsp:All>
            <wsam:Addressing> <-- requires Anonymous responses --> 
Alternative 2
                <wsp:Policy>
                          <AnonymousResponses />
                </wsp:Policy>
            </wsam:Addressing>
        </wsp:All>
        <wsp:All>
            <wsam:Addressing> <-  requires nonAnonymous responses --> 
Alternative 3
                <wsp:Policy>
                          <NonAnonymousResponses />
                </wsp:Policy>
            </wsam:Addressing>
        </wsp:All>
    </wsp:ExactlyOne>
</wsp:Policy>
If Alternative 1 is selected, does this mean that neither Anonymous 
responses nor NonAnonymous responses are allowed as both are part of the 
policy vocabulary but not included in the alternative.
All the best, Ashok