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

RE: NEW ISSUE 4339 [Primer] : Update references to interoperability in Ignorable Policy Expressions section

From: Asir Vedamuthu <asirveda@microsoft.com>
Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2007 18:40:46 -0800
To: Sergey Beryozkin <sergey.beryozkin@iona.com>
CC: Fabian Ritzmann <Fabian.Ritzmann@Sun.COM>, "Sverdlov, Yakov" <Yakov.Sverdlov@ca.com>, Christopher B Ferris <chrisfer@us.ibm.com>, "public-ws-policy@w3.org" <public-ws-policy@w3.org>
Message-ID: <C9BF0238EED3634BA1866AEF14C7A9E534E57D845F@NA-EXMSG-C116.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>

Reading this thread, it is not clear to me what is your proposal to resolve issue 4339. Can you summarize?

Regards,

Asir S Vedamuthu
Microsoft Corporation



-----Original Message-----
From: public-ws-policy-request@w3.org [mailto:public-ws-policy-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Sergey Beryozkin
Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2007 11:26 AM
To: Fabian Ritzmann
Cc: Sverdlov, Yakov; Christopher B Ferris; public-ws-policy@w3.org
Subject: Re: NEW ISSUE [Primer] : Update references to interoperability in Ignorable Policy Expressions section


Hi Fabian

Thanks for that clarification. I misunderstood you referring to the fact that it was not necessarily the actual client doing the
intersection hence my reply was a bit too resolute :-)
I reckon what you mentioned is a useful piece of info which in itself go to the primer to some short section describing various ways
on how a client can get to the effective policy which needs to be used during the communication...

Cheers, Sergey


Sergey Beryozkin wrote:
> Ok. I got what Chris was referring to. Thanks. But it's immaterial who consumes the policy first, the actual client who start
> wiring that info into the client runtime or the broker acting on the client behalf or some other entity to the point of this
> issue. All of them are consumers in a sense that they do the intersection.
> The point of this issue is that the provider needs to be aware that marking the assertion as wsp:ignorable does not guarantee it
> will be ignored for intersection purposes in all the intersection scenarious...The section actually says that but I just suggest
> to make that message a bit more stronger...
> I thought there was a common agreement on adding a statement like this before, has anything changed ?

I'm fine with adding that statement. My only objection was to using
terms that are undefined and ill understood.

Fabian


>     ----- Original Message -----
>     *From:* Sverdlov, Yakov <mailto:Yakov.Sverdlov@ca.com>
>     *To:* Christopher B Ferris <mailto:chrisfer@us.ibm.com> ; Sergey
>     Beryozkin <mailto:sergey.beryozkin@iona.com>
>     *Cc:* Fabian Ritzmann <mailto:Fabian.Ritzmann@Sun.COM> ;
>     public-ws-policy@w3.org <mailto:public-ws-policy@w3.org> ;
>     public-ws-policy-request@w3.org
>     <mailto:public-ws-policy-request@w3.org>
>     *Sent:* Wednesday, February 21, 2007 4:26 PM
>     *Subject:* RE: NEW ISSUE [Primer] : Update references to
>     interoperability in Ignorable Policy Expressions section
>
>     +1 to Chris.
>
>     Policy intersection (and enforcement) will be externalized in many
>     cases - by PEP, for example.
>
>     Regards,
>
>     Yakov Sverdlov
>
>     CA
>
>     * From: * public-ws-policy-request@w3.org
>     <mailto:public-ws-policy-request@w3.org>
>     [mailto:public-ws-policy-request@w3.org] *On Behalf Of
>     *Christopher B Ferris
>     *Sent:* Wednesday, February 21, 2007 11:20 AM
>     *To:* Sergey Beryozkin
>     *Cc:* Fabian Ritzmann; public-ws-policy@w3.org
>     <mailto:public-ws-policy@w3.org>; public-ws-policy-request@w3.org
>     <mailto:public-ws-policy-request@w3.org>
>     *Subject:* Re: NEW ISSUE [Primer] : Update references to
>     interoperability in Ignorable Policy Expressions section
>
>
>     I didn't say provider. I said not client. There is a distinction.
>
>     Cheers,
>
>     Christopher Ferris
>     STSM, Software Group Standards Strategy
>     email: chrisfer@us.ibm.com <mailto: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 10:43:07 AM:
>
>     > Why would a provider may want to compute the intersection ?
>     >
>     > Thanks, Sergey
>     >
>     > ----- Original Message -----
>     > From: Christopher B Ferris
>     > To: Fabian Ritzmann
>     > Cc: public-ws-policy@w3.org ; public-ws-policy-request@w3.org ;
>     > Sergey Beryozkin
>     > Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2007 3:37 PM
>     > Subject: Re: NEW ISSUE [Primer] : Update references to
>     > interoperability in Ignorable Policy Expressions section
>     >
>     >
>     > One could argue that a policy consumer is one who consumes policy,
>     > for whatever purpose.
>     > I certainly agree that the agency that computes intersection need
>     > not necessarily be a
>     > web service consumer (client).
>     >
>     > 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 08:25:22 AM:
>     >
>     > >
>     > > Sergey Beryozkin wrote:
>     > > > Target : WS-Policy Primer, Section 2.7
>     > > >
>     > > > Proposal : Update the last sentence : "Please note that the
>     > > ignorableness is at
>     > > > the discretion of policy consumers therefore ignorable
>     assertions
>     > > may have an
>     > > > impact on determining compatibility of policies"
>     > > >
>     > >
>     > > Ignorable is a property whose relevance is at the discretion of
>     the
>     > > entity that computes the intersection. That may or may not be a
>     policy
>     > > consumer.
>     > >
>     > > Fabian
>     > >
>     > >
>
Received on Wednesday, 7 March 2007 02:42:24 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:20:48 GMT