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

Re: Ignorable assertions and interoperability

From: Sergey Beryozkin <sergey.beryozkin@iona.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 09:36:19 -0000
Message-ID: <00ea01c7559b$bd78f060$c301020a@sberyoz>
To: "Christopher B Ferris" <chrisfer@us.ibm.com>
Cc: <public-ws-policy@w3.org>, <public-ws-policy-request@w3.org>
Hi Chris

Thanks for your comments.

I agree, I should've created a bug with a specific proposal rather just suggesting (the editors :-)) to do some revisioning of the primer's text.

One goal of this email was to explain why I was concerned about the interoperability statement during the concall as I promised at the time to reply in email... 
As far as wsp:ignorable and WS-Policy interoperability were concerned, one possible take on it can be that using wsp:ignorable might cause at the moment at least WS-Policy-level interoperability problems due to third-party consumers using a strict mode. This is one interop concern. 
As far as a provider is concerned, I believe a provider's motivation to mark the assertion as wsp:ignorable is to try to reach with the (assertion) message to as many requesters as possible and yet continue to interoperate at the ws-policy level with ideally every requester out there. Thats's another possible view on what wsp:ignorable means to the provider as far as a ws-level interop is concerned.
Then there's on the wire interoperability which is what was referred to during the call. 

Hopefully this explains the reason behind the message I've sent.

I've reviewed the primer and the guidelines yesterday and I've seen just a few references to the interoperability term. As far as wsp:ignorable and interop are concerned, section 2.7 adequately refers to both on the wire interop and the ws-policy level interop (implicitly by advising to be aware of the impact of this attribute on the compatibility of policies).
I'll add a bug with a proposal to add a minor update to that section (with respect to referring to interop). Specifically, I'll propose to add a text sent by yourself earlier on the ignorability being at the discretion of the requester.

Cheers, Sergey


  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Christopher B Ferris 
  To: Sergey Beryozkin 
  Cc: public-ws-policy@w3.org ; public-ws-policy-request@w3.org 
  Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2007 12:52 PM
  Subject: Re: Ignorable assertions and interoperability



  Sergey, 

  Would you please log this as a bug against the primer and guidelines so that it can be tracked? 

  Also, it would help to have specific areas of the primer and guidelines that mention interoperability 
  so that we can focus on what exactly needs to be changed. 

  Finally, if you could provide a proposal to address your concerns, that would help greatly towards 
  closing the issue. 

  Cheers, 

  Christopher Ferris
  STSM, Software Group Standards Strategy
  email: chrisfer@us.ibm.com
  blog: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/page/chrisferris
  phone: +1 508 377 9295 

  public-ws-policy-request@w3.org wrote on 02/20/2007 05:52:22 AM:

  > Hi 
  >   
  > During the latest concall it was recommended to advise not to use 
  > ignorable assertions if the interoperability would be affected...I 
  > thought it was a strong statement at a time. 
  > The reason for that was that I was assuming at a time a WS-Policy 
  > level interoperability was referred to. 
  > Most of the time it's obvious what interoperability the spec/primer 
  > texts refer to, but I feel it would be useful to revisit (in the 
  > primer and guidelines) all references to the 'interoperability' 
  > terms and qualify them as appropriate... 
  >   
  > Cheers, Sergey Beryozkin
Received on Wednesday, 21 February 2007 09:34:53 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:20:47 GMT