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

RE: Revised positions for closed/open world assumptions

From: David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>
Date: Fri, 18 May 2007 11:31:23 -0700
Message-ID: <4260A18CD3F05B469E67BC6C20464EAC23F7E0@rcpbex01.amer.bea.com>
To: "Christopher B Ferris" <chrisfer@us.ibm.com>, "Ashok Malhotra" <ashok.malhotra@oracle.com>
Cc: <public-ws-policy@w3.org>
How does P know what is in R's policy?  It isn't doing the intersection.
It just get the bits on the wire based upon what R decides to do.


	From: public-ws-policy-request@w3.org
[mailto:public-ws-policy-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Christopher B
	Sent: Friday, May 18, 2007 6:23 AM
	To: Ashok Malhotra
	Cc: public-ws-policy@w3.org
	Subject: RE: Revised positions for closed/open world assumptions

	Maybe "initiating entity" is unclear. Basically, I intend it to
be the entity that engages an interaction 
	by retrieving the other side's policy and intersecting it. 
	If we expand this with a request/response MEP 
	Requestor = R 
	Provider = P 
	If A is in R's policy, but not in P's policy R does not engage
that behavior. 
	If A is in P's policy, but not in R's policy, P does not engage
that behavior 
	If P does not use A's policy to engage the interaction, then
everything is out of scope. 
	One would presume that P would deal with the behaviors
represented in the 
	messages received from R in a manner consistent with their
	I recognize that the intersection algorithm is direction
independent. The proposed 
	language does not affect intersection, it just places
constraints on the entity that 
	uses the intersected policy to engage an interaction, limiting
the set of behaviors 
	applied to those that are implied by assertions IN the
intersected policy and (possibly, but we 
	don't say anything about them since they are out of scope) those
which are NOT IN 
	the initiating entity's policy. 
	Those behaviors that are IN the initiating entity's policy but
NOT IN the intersected policy 
	are RIGHT OUT:-) 
	Make sense? 
	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 
	"Ashok Malhotra" <ashok.malhotra@oracle.com> wrote on 05/17/2007
07:06:31 PM:
	> Chris: 
	> In your latest note in this thread you proposed 
	> Proposed text added to section 4.5: 
	>       If an initiating entity includes a policy assertion type
A in 
	> its policy, and this policy assertion type A 
	>         does not occur in an intersected policy, then the
	> entity does not apply the behavior implied by 
	>         assertion type A. 
	> I have two concerns about this proposal: 
	> 1. It does not say anything about the policy of the responder.
	> the behavior different in the other direction?  I think not. 
	> 2. The policy intersection algorithm is direction independent.
	> proposal introduces direction dependency and I'm wary of that.
	> we go that way then I would like to bring up the complex of
	> that say that the initiator expresses constraints - what you
	> do, and the responder expresses capabilities - what I can do
	> intersection works differently if viewed from the two
	> If we go that route then this leads naturally into the
	> matching that DaveO and I have been proposing. 
	> All the best, Ashok 
Received on Friday, 18 May 2007 18:31:55 UTC

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