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

RE: NEW ISSUE 4130: Ignorable assertions must be ignored

From: Christopher B Ferris <chrisfer@us.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2007 14:54:32 -0500
To: "Ashok Malhotra" <ashok.malhotra@oracle.com>
Cc: "public-ws-policy@w3.org" <public-ws-policy@w3.org>, public-ws-policy-request@w3.org, "Sergey Beryozkin" <sergey.beryozkin@iona.com>
Message-ID: <OFA848C7A7.D0496C6A-ON85257257.006C4BC5-85257257.006D574F@us.ibm.com>
Ashok,

<hat mode="off">
The "server" does not have a "mode". It publishes a policy that may, or 
may not, contain assertions with Ignorable.
If it doesn't want assertions to be ignored, then it shouldn't be using 
Ignorable.
</hat>

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



"Ashok Malhotra" <ashok.malhotra@oracle.com> 
Sent by: public-ws-policy-request@w3.org
01/02/2007 12:03 PM

To
"Sergey Beryozkin" <sergey.beryozkin@iona.com>, "public-ws-policy@w3.org" 
<public-ws-policy@w3.org>
cc

Subject
RE: NEW ISSUE 4130: Ignorable assertions must be ignored






Hi Sergey:
The problems with having two modes, strict and lax, is that the client and 
server could use different modes and, thus, come up with different policy 
alternatives.  And it complicates life.  So why don?t we go with the 
original proposal to have a single intersection mode that ignores 
ignorable?
 
All the best, Ashok 

From: Sergey Beryozkin [mailto:sergey.beryozkin@iona.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, January 02, 2007 8:06 AM
To: Ashok Malhotra; public-ws-policy@w3.org
Subject: Re: NEW ISSUE 4130: Ignorable assertions must be ignored
 
Hi
 
I'm finding this intriguing...So you suggest to have wsp:ignorable 
assertions be completely ignored at the intersection engine. 
 
This will mean then that the only way for those providers who wish to 
advertize assertions such that aware requesters can use them and unaware 
requesters can ignore them is to use wsp:optional. 
 
This is actually what we proposed originally but the group decided on the 
introdution of wsp:ignorable instead (and useful strict and lax 
intersection modes) and keep the semantics associated with wsp:optional 
intact. 
 
As fars as I understand you can achive the ignorability you're looking for 
by using a lax intersection mode on the requester's side and do not 
specify an assertion marked by a provider as ignorable in the list of 
requester's requirements.

Cheers, 
Sergey Beryozkin



Title

Ignorable assertion must be ignored

Description

At the last f2f meeting the WS-Policy WG agreed to add an attribute called
'ignorable' to the WS-Policy assertion syntax.  We think this is a step in 
the right direction.  The WG, however, blunted the effect of this change 
by
allowing the ignorable attribute to be ignored during policy intersection 
by
allowing two intersection modes one of which honors the ignorable 
attribute and the other which ignores it.

We argue this creates a problem as the parties attempting to agree on a 
policy alternative may use different forms of the intersection algorithm 
and come up with different solutions.  A standard that allows such 
variation is not very useful.

We suggest that the policy intersection algorithm be changed so that 
assertions marked ignorable are always ignored.
 
Justification

See above.

Target

WS-Policy Framework

Proposal 

1. In section 4.5 Policy Intersection, add a third bullet after the first 
two bullets that says:
o Assertions with ignorable = 'true' are ignored in during policy 
intersection.

2. Remove the first bullet, including its sub-bullets from the second set 
of 2 bullets.

3. Add an ignorable assertion to the following example.
Received on Tuesday, 2 January 2007 19:54:39 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:20:45 GMT