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

RE: Revised positions for closed/open world assumptions

From: Dale Moberg <dmoberg@us.axway.com>
Date: Mon, 14 May 2007 10:40:12 -0700
Message-ID: <97085FEE4C8BDB4AB6FA3E770EBC79BB0110FF7B@mail1.cyclonecommerce.com>
To: "Christopher B Ferris" <chrisfer@us.ibm.com>
Cc: <public-ws-policy@w3.org>
Chris Ferris writes:

Maryann and I have been noodling on language that tries to capture our
intent better. So, rather than 
add the "No other behaviors are to be applied" language, we think that
maybe if we added the following 
prose to section 4.5 Intersection, just before the algorithm is
described, that that might clear up the confusion 
while at the same time preserving the semantic that we believe to be

New text for section 4.5: 

If the intersection algorithm produces a policy alternative, common to
both parties, it indicates that the behaviors 
implied by the assertions in that policy alternative are an implicit
contract and will be applied for any interaction 
based on that alternative. Any behaviors not represented by policy
assertions in that alternative are out of scope 
and not applied as a result of policy framework processing.


DaleMoberg>> OK, by switching to an explanation of a "policy processing
model," I think a lot of the "logical quibbles" can drop out, and that I
think is an improvement. The language is not encroaching on the semantic
options that domain policy assertion designers have available. 


It seems that the advice actually gets close to common sense now, for
you appear to be saying that once you select a policy alternative,
engage in the behavior that you intend to engage in! 


The other alternatives are "out of scope" once your policy alternative
(for which you found a match) is selected. And if you included behavior
that triggered other provider-supported policy assertions (present in
other alternatives), then the other side can be expected to make a
response, and you might not be prepared for it! Or something like that
might occur that messes up the interaction. 


The phrase "implicit contract" though seems a stretch. Suppose the
policy provider offers several policy alternatives. The policy provider
presumably does not care what policy alternative is selected by the
policy consumer, and unless the provider was being deceptive, permits
the consumer to jump from one alternative to another. Is there any
presumption that in the case where several policy alternatives are in
common between consumer and provider, that the consumer cannot engage
one set of behaviors one time and another set of behaviors the next
time? I personally can't understand how to get that commitment over time
out of ws-policy at present. If the commitment is just for one time,
then the advice boils down to the truism, that a consumer should be
consistent between his selected policy alternative intentions and his WS


I am guessing that if there is push-back now, it will be because the
proposed policy processing model impinges on somebody's planned


Received on Monday, 14 May 2007 17:40:28 UTC

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