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

Re: Amended text and discussion of Issue 4393

From: Monica J. Martin <Monica.Martin@Sun.COM>
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2007 13:35:01 -0700
To: Glen Daniels <gdaniels@progress.com>
Cc: "public-ws-policy@w3.org" <public-ws-policy@w3.org>
Message-id: <46252F75.9040303@sun.com>

Glen,
I am assuming for tomorrow, Glen, that this meets your requirements and 
mine in finding compromise text [1] to finalize Issue 4393.[2]

Thanks.



========
[1] See: 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Apr/0041.html 
(shown below as well).

> Glen Daniels wrote: "Regardless of the chosen intersection mode, 
> ignorable assertions do not express any concrete requirements on the 
> behavior of consumers - in other words, a consumer is free to ignore 
> (hence the name "ignorable") any such assertions that end up in the 
> resulting policy after interesection, with no adverse effects on 
> runtime interactions."...


monica: Glen I can live with this if we revise slightly to be more 
succinct [1] and also maintain consistency with Section 2.7 [2]:

   [change from / Glen's] "Regardless of the chosen intersection mode,
   ignorable assertions do not express any concrete requirements on the
   behavior of consumers - in other words, a consumer is free to ignore
   (hence the name "ignorable") any such assertions that end up in the
   resulting policy after interesection, with no adverse effects on
   runtime interactions."

   [change to / updated] "Regardless of the chosen intersection mode,
   ignorable assertions do not express any wire-level requirements on
   the behavior of consumers - in other words, a consumer could choose
   to ignore any such assertions that end up in the resulting policy
   after interesection, with no adverse effects on runtime interactions."

[1] Note, I've deleted "hence..." emphasis as it really isn't needed as 
the first part of the sentence clearly states 'ignorable assertions'.
[2] Note, Suggest we use 'wire-level' rather than 'concrete', consistent 
with Section 2.7 that states:

  "This behavior has no direct impact on the messages sent on the wire, 
and does not affect interoperability."

There may be other points you made in your email that I could be 
addressed further separately. Thanks.

[2] http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=4393 (issue)
last proposal (that is amended by the comments above) 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Apr/0036.html
Received on Tuesday, 17 April 2007 20:44:31 GMT

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