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

Re: Ignorable assertions and interoperability

From: Frederick Hirsch <frederick.hirsch@nokia.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 12:51:08 -0500
Message-Id: <AB4C1B58-83E7-455F-97D0-0FF350C5213D@nokia.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>
To: ext Sergey Beryozkin <sergey.beryozkin@iona.com>

yes

regards, Frederick

Frederick Hirsch
Nokia


On Feb 21, 2007, at 12:22 PM, ext Sergey Beryozkin wrote:

>
>> 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 17:51:43 GMT

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