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

Re: Ferris wsp 5/1/2007: 'Will Not be Applied'

From: Christopher B Ferris <chrisfer@us.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 2 May 2007 11:05:23 -0400
To: "Monica J. Martin" <Monica.Martin@Sun.COM>
Cc: Monica.Martin@Sun.COM, "public-ws-policy@w3.org" <public-ws-policy@w3.org>
Message-ID: <OF2492C5CA.6E23DC4F-ON852572CF.00518863-852572CF.0052CB40@us.ibm.com>
Monica,

Thanks for taking the time to review the proposal. Please see my responses 
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

Monica.Martin@Sun.COM wrote on 05/01/2007 07:50:18 PM:

> Chris,
> For:
> 
>     "...Instead, we could simply state that the behavior implied by an
>     assertion that is absent from a given alternative is not to be
>     applied in the context of the attached policy subject when that
>     alternative is engaged...."
> 
> >>Monica: Can you perhaps explain how this is different that the 
> text we have now to alleviate the confusion that exists?
> 
>    1. The text is descriptive text rather than RFC language.

In the interests of full disclosure, there was some behind the scenes 
discussion
of this prior to my posting the proposal. Some of the feedback had been 
that
since the framework does not address enforcement of the application of 
policy
in the context of an interaction, it was felt that normative language 
(e.g. MUST NOT
or SHOULD NOT) would be inappropriate for this context.

A preliminary proposal had:

"... the behavior implied by an assertion that is absent from an 
alternative
MUST NOT (or SHOULD NOT) be applied in the context of the atached..."

>    2. Does it seem more accurate to say that the policy assertions that
>       exist in a given alternative are applied in the context of the
>       attached policy subject when that alternative is engaged?

It isn't clear whether that is more accurate. It is clearly accurate. 

>    3. What effect does this have on a domain's capability to restrict or
>       not restrict that this statement (or provide semantics around it)?
>       Related to 2.

I'm not sure that I understand the question here. Are you asking whether a
domain gets to say whether a nested policy is a constraint on the parent
assertion (much as WS-Addressing has done)? If so, then I do not believe 
that
the proposal affects this... I think it reinforces it.

> 
> I am posing questions rather than pushback or position.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
Received on Wednesday, 2 May 2007 15:05:40 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:38:34 UTC