Re: Ignorable assertions and interoperability

> A provider always runs the risk that some consumer may not wish to
> interact due to how the provider operates.
Yes. Agreed.

> provider must understand the customer base properly, and offer  appropriate service.
Yes. Agreed.

That said, I think wsp:ignorable affects the expectations of the provider. At least that's how I see it and I can count for at least 
one user :-) I hope we can agree on this too. That's really it. And the primer just needs to present the story such that no 
unreasonable expectations are made.Why would provider use wsp:ignorable ? So that the assertion can be ignored during the 
intersection. Otherwise just not use wsp:ignorable, so that the strict mode is effectively is on,  right ?
Cheers, Sergey


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Frederick Hirsch" <frederick.hirsch@nokia.com>
To: "ext Sergey Beryozkin" <sergey.beryozkin@iona.com>
Cc: "Frederick Hirsch" <frederick.hirsch@nokia.com>; "Christopher B Ferris" <chrisfer@us.ibm.com>; <public-ws-policy@w3.org>; 
<public-ws-policy-request@w3.org>
Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2007 4:31 PM
Subject: Re: Ignorable assertions and interoperability


> No I do not believe this concern is about ignorable per se.
>
> A provider always runs the risk that some consumer may not wish to  interact due to how the provider operates.
> This does not mean that ignorable is the issue, it is that the  provider must understand the customer base properly, and offer 
> appropriate service.
>
> regards, Frederick
>
> Frederick Hirsch
> Nokia
>
>
> On Feb 21, 2007, at 8:01 AM, ext Sergey Beryozkin wrote:
>
>> Hi Chris
>>
>> "I guess I don't understand why strict mode presents interoperability
>> challenges. We have both strict and lax mode intersection for a  reason.
>> Those policy consumers that don't want to ignore assertions that are
>> marked as ignorable can use strict to achieve that objective. Those  that
>> are okay with ignoring what is marked ignorable can use lax mode. The
>> policy consumer has the choice to do whatever they feel is right for
>> their circumstances. "
>>
>> I agree. >From the consumer's perspective we have no issues at all.
>> The things are slightly different from the provider's perspective  though.
>> Provider marks the assertion as wsp:ignorable=true so that it can  be ignored for the intersection purposes. Otherwise why else 
>> would  the provider do it ? If the provider wants the assertion be  understood always then it would just expose that assertion as 
>> the  normal required assertion.
>> But the provider does not aware of what mode consumers will be  using. By marking the assertion as ignorable the provider can get 
>> some consumers fail to consume the service if they work in the  strict mode. Yes, that's what consumers chose to but I think it's 
>> not something a provider will really want... So it's a possible  interop concern at the WS-Policy level
>>
>> Do you see what I mean ? Would you agree ?
>>
>> Cheers, Sergey
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: Christopher B Ferris
>> To: Sergey Beryozkin
>> Cc: public-ws-policy@w3.org ; public-ws-policy-request@w3.org
>> Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2007 12:32 PM
>> Subject: Re: Ignorable assertions and interoperability
>>
>>
>> Sergey,
>>
>> Thanks for elaborating.
>>
>> Please see my inlined comments below.
>>
>> 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 02/21/2007 04:36:19 AM:
>>
>> > 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.
>>
>> I guess I don't understand why strict mode presents interoperability
>> challenges. We have both strict and lax mode intersection for a  reason.
>> Those policy consumers that don't want to ignore assertions that are
>> marked as ignorable can use strict to achieve that objective. Those  that
>> are okay with ignoring what is marked ignorable can use lax mode. The
>> policy consumer has the choice to do whatever they feel is right for
>> their circumstances.
>>
>> > 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
>>
>> Agreed.
>>
>> > 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.
>>
>> I still don't understand the interop concern.
>>
>> >
>> > 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 17:24:02 UTC