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

RE: Initial proposal for Issue 4041

From: Prasad Yendluri <prasad.yendluri@webmethods.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 19:02:26 -0500
Message-ID: <BDD4EF3331E8FB4EA19B677CDAD6302093A1A6@ca-exbe1.webm.webmethods.com>
To: Frederick Hirsch <frederick.hirsch@nokia.com>, public-ws-policy@w3.org
Cc: WS-Policy Editors W3C <public-ws-policy-eds@w3.org>
Hi Frederick,

 

Again thanks for the detailed work on this.

 

I have a few comments as enumerated below:

 

1.       Lines 29-31 state 

  "To mark an assertion as "Ignorable" the policy assertion definition must
be examined to determine that it has no wire behavior and that it is allowed
to be marked as Ignorable"

 

This is not true. We discussed this aspect during the discussion that added
the "ignorable" marker but, the current WS-Policy 1.5 Framework
specification does not impose any such restrictions on assertions that can
be marked "Ignorable". All assertions that have wire manifestation or not
can be marked "Ignorable". I raised this aspect myself at the Boston F2F and
I was overruled :-)

 

2.  The sentence that follows the above text "Assertion authors need to
clarify that assertions may be marked as "Ignorable".

Not sure what this is conveying? Or how it follows the no wire manifestation
aspect of ignorable assertions stated above. 

Need more clarity on what this is saying.

 

3.	The famous one (editor's special :):  "The Ignorable marker allows
them (policy providers) to be truthful."

 

The Ignorable marker does not make the policy providers truthful. 

A simple "to do so" is enough, as the previous statements clearly articulate
the need to declare all behaviors that will be engaged.

 

I suggest a rephrase as follows:

"It is incumbent of Providers to declare the behaviors that will be engaged
using policies although those behaviors may not exhibit wire level
manifestations. 

The Ignorable marker allows them (policy providers) to do so."

 

4.      The "Ignorable" is referred to as different things throughout the
description. 

"The Ignorable marker allows them." , "when Ignorable flag is set to "true",
"the Ignorable property does not impact", "..Ignorable attribute"

     I suggest we stick a consistent of way characterizing it.

 

Thanks,
Prasad 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: public-ws-policy-eds-request@w3.org
[mailto:public-ws-policy-eds-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Frederick Hirsch
Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2007 12:27 PM
To: public-ws-policy@w3.org
Cc: Hirsch Frederick; WS-Policy Editors W3C
Subject: Initial proposal for Issue 4041

 

Attached is an initial draft proposal for issue 4041 [1], adding  

ignorable in the Primer. Note that this issue did not include adding  

material on ignorable to the Guidelines, which would be related.

 

This draft does not reflect the full consensus of the editors, since  

not every editor had a chance to review it. However we felt that it  

would be useful to provide to the committee in advance of the F2F to  

show the direction of this work. Additional changes may be needed.

 

Thanks

 

regards, Frederick

 

Frederick Hirsch

Nokia

 

[1] <http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=4041>

 

  _____  
Received on Thursday, 11 January 2007 13:19:55 GMT

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