Re: Action-324 (was FW: [Bug 4662] [Guidelines] Proposal for AI 305

Monica,
It was my understanding that the guidelines was to supplement the text in 
the framework.
Would you be ammenable to text like the folllowing? 

In the case where one party chooses to engage in runtime behavior with
another party based on alternatives from a lax mode intersection
algorithm, the runtime behavior might include behavior associated with an
assertion that was marked ignorable, and any such behavior is out of scope 
of the policy framework. 

Maryann 



"Monica J. Martin" <Monica.Martin@Sun.COM> 
Sent by: public-ws-policy-request@w3.org
07/03/2007 11:14 AM

To
Asir Vedamuthu <asirveda@microsoft.com>, Maryann Hondo/Austin/IBM@IBMUS
cc
"public-ws-policy@w3.org" <public-ws-policy@w3.org>
Subject
Re: Action-324 (was FW: [Bug 4662] [Guidelines] Proposal for AI 305









>> Asir Vedamuthu wrote: ACTION-324 Asir to follow-up on 4662 to relate 
>> Microsoft comments...[1]
>> In the case where one party chooses to engage in runtime behavior with
>> another party based on alternatives from a lax mode intersection
>> algorithm, the runtime behavior is out of scope of the policy
>> framework. 
>
> vedamuthu: Regardless of the chosen mode for policy intersection, any 
> runtime behavior is always out of scope for the policy framework.

mm1: Asir and MaryAnn, where does this constraint appear in the 
Framework? Otherwise, if not, have we uncovered a comment for the 
Framework?
Thanks.

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Jun/0078.html

 >>monica 7/3: Unless we have a clearer articulation of this, should we 
consider changing or deleting this text? We'll discuss when MaryAnn 
returns. Thank you.