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

Issue 4414 (was RE: bug 3978 --- updated proposal from maryann and dave o.

From: Asir Vedamuthu <asirveda@microsoft.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2007 09:20:09 -0700
To: Frederick Hirsch <frederick.hirsch@nokia.com>, ext Maryann Hondo <mhondo@us.ibm.com>
CC: "public-ws-policy@w3.org" <public-ws-policy@w3.org>
Message-ID: <C9BF0238EED3634BA1866AEF14C7A9E53ED3BF7071@NA-EXMSG-C116.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>

[Corrected the subject line - this is issue 4414]

Two comments on the revised proposal:

>If Company-X adds the EndOfLife policy assertion

When the WG adopted Dave O's proposal [1], WG amended the proposal by adding the adjective 'hypothetical' to all occurrences of the 'EndOfLife assertion'.

>If Company-X wishes any clients to always be
>able to intersect with one alternative in a
>policy expression , particularly those using
>strict intersection, the first policy alternative
>offered should not contain the EndOfLife
>policy assertion even with an ignorable attribute.

This sentence comes across as if a client would always intersect with one alternative in a policy as long as the first policy alternative does not contain the hypothetical EOL policy assertion. Suggested editorial change is:

s/alternative in a policy expression/alternative in Company-X policy expression/

[1] http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=4270#c1

Regards,

Asir S Vedamuthu
Microsoft Corporation

-----Original Message-----
From: public-ws-policy-request@w3.org [mailto:public-ws-policy-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Frederick Hirsch
Sent: Friday, April 20, 2007 10:59 AM
To: ext Maryann Hondo
Cc: Frederick Hirsch; public-ws-policy@w3.org
Subject: Re: bug 3978 --- updated proposal from maryann and dave o.


It seems to make sense to chose option a) so that this works for
clients that are not aware of the EndOfLife assertion. The text in
the proposal following the choice reads as if a) were chosen which is
consistent with that choice.

Thus propose

> policy alternative offered should    (!!The WG much choose which to
> use).
> a) not contain the EndOfLife policy assertion even with an
> ignorable attribute. This is because an alternative with the
> EndOfLife assertion with an ignorable attribute will only intersect
> with a client operating in strict intersection mode, IF the client
> also has an EndOfLife policy assertion.
> b) contain the policy assertion type. If Company-X adds
> theEndOfLife policy assertion even type to a subsequent
> alternative, then requesters using strict mode will not understand
> the assertion type and the alternative

be replaced with

"policy alternative offered should not contain the EndOfLife policy
assertion even with an ignorable attribute. This is because an
alternative with the EndOfLife assertion with an ignorable attribute
will only intersect with a client operating in strict intersection
mode, IF the client also has an EndOfLife policy assertion."

regards, Frederick

Frederick Hirsch
Nokia


On Apr 17, 2007, at 9:36 AM, ext Maryann Hondo wrote:

>
> All,
> I worked with Dave O. on a revised proposal for this bug for which
> I attach the following diff of section 3.8.
>
> Justification: The current text  does not completely explain the
> difference
> between extending the policy framework itself, and using
> extensibility points
> to allow policy expression authors to version policy assertions.
>
> Target: Primer
>
> Proposal: Change text in section 3.8 as follows:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <ws-policy-primer-section3.8text-diff-04016.doc>
Received on Wednesday, 25 April 2007 16:20:38 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:20:50 GMT