W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-policy@w3.org > April 2007

Re: Are nested assertions part of the policy vocabulary?

From: Monica J. Martin <Monica.Martin@Sun.COM>
Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2007 08:37:30 -0700
To: Maryann Hondo <mhondo@us.ibm.com>, Glen Daniels <gdaniels@progress.com>
Cc: Ashok Malhotra <ashok.malhotra@oracle.com>, public-ws-policy@w3.org, public-ws-policy-request@w3.org
Message-id: <4613C63A.4090606@sun.com>

My comment only indicated the behavior is consistent with the baseline 
document of which conformance for WS-Addressing bases this decision. 
Looking back at our discussion around Issue 3602 for example, as MaryAnn 
indicated constraints are unspecified.  My question relates to whether 
or not the guiding principle in WS-Addressing is that those are supported?

Thanks.

[1] We have text related to no claims, no behaviors, or only those 
specified (none of which are RFC language).

> hondo: Glen,
> I think the problem is that the assertions are really trying to 
> express a constraint .....and should be something
> like "nonAnonymousONLY".  so the absence, is not the absence of 
> support but rather the absence of the constraint.
>
> And in this case I think the " no constraints" is  sufficient for your 
> use case
> The client has no constraints on what the provider will do.
> That should intersect with all the provider options.
>
> I hope we can talk this through on the call.
> Maryann
>
> daniels: Hi Monica:
>
> I'm a little confused here.  Are you and MaryAnn indeed saying that
> selecting the first alternative in Ashok's (and indeed WS-Addressing's)
> example means that neither anonymous nor non-anonymous responses are
> allowed?  That certainly isn't the goal of the policy, and indeed this
> interpretation would seem to disallow ANY kind of response.
>
> How would you write a consumer policy which was meant to successfully
> intersect with endpoint policies which either a) express nothing about
> anonymous responses, b) express a requirement for anonymous responses,
> or c) express a requirement for non-anonymous responses?
>
> --Glen
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: public-ws-policy-request@w3.org
> > [mailto:public-ws-policy-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Monica J. Martin
> > Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2007 5:30 PM
> > To: Ashok Malhotra
> > Cc: public-ws-policy@w3.org
> > Subject: Re: Are nested assertions part of the policy vocabulary?
> >
> >
> >
> > hondo: Ashok,
> > My response is yes.
> > Maryann
> >
> >  >>mm1: Ashok, agree with MaryAnn on question one answer - this point
> > has been made that the nested assertions are part of the policy
> > vocabulary.  Yet, an important point associated with this surrounds
> > whether or not the guiding conformance [1] requires support for those
> > response types - that provides substance on your second
> > question and its
> > disposition.. [2]
> >
> > We also state in Section 3.2 Framework before the statement you cite:
> >
> >     An alternative with zero assertions indicates no behaviors. An
> >     alternative with one or more assertions indicates
> > behaviors implied
> >     by those, and only those assertions.
> >
> > Remember: (no position just stating the action-result), we augmented
> > this text in
> > http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=3602 Issue 3602.
> >
> > [1] WS-A specification(s) referenced
> > [2] Related to empty and the base assumptions of WS-Addressing.
> >
> > >Ashok Malhotra wrote: 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
> > >
> > >  
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 4 April 2007 15:37:24 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:20:49 GMT