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

Re: Client policy processing

From: Anthony Nadalin <drsecure@us.ibm.com>
Date: Sat, 19 May 2007 22:42:38 -0500
To: Frederick Hirsch <frederick.hirsch@nokia.com>
Cc: Frederick Hirsch <frederick.hirsch@nokia.com>, ws policy <public-ws-policy@w3.org>, public-ws-policy-request@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF67E3D55E.82CF95D8-ON862572E1.0014526B-862572E1.00146225@us.ibm.com>





Anything that is not listed explicitly, otherwise how do I know what I
agreed upon ?

Anthony Nadalin | Work 512.838.0085 | Cell 512.289.4122


                                                                           
             Frederick Hirsch                                              
             <frederick.hirsch                                             
             @nokia.com>                                                To 
                                       Anthony Nadalin/Austin/IBM@IBMUS    
             05/09/2007 11:47                                           cc 
             AM                        Frederick Hirsch                    
                                       <frederick.hirsch@nokia.com>, ws    
                                       policy <public-ws-policy@w3.org>,   
                                       public-ws-policy-request@w3.org     
                                                                   Subject 
                                       Re: Client policy processing        
                                                                           
                                                                           
                                                                           
                                                                           
                                                                           
                                                                           




how would simple client know what is negated?

regards, Frederick

Frederick Hirsch
Nokia


On May 9, 2007, at 9:29 AM, ext Anthony Nadalin wrote:

> I would say this is all optional, as the client may not have assess
> to its own policy or the ability to actually process the policy
> (limited device). i get worried that if we don't have absence means
> negation that we will wind up in spots where it will be hard or
> impossible to know the actual policy that was in effect.
>
> Anthony Nadalin | Work 512.838.0085 | Cell 512.289.4122
> <graycol.gif>
> Frederick Hirsch <frederick.hirsch@nokia.com>
>
>
> Frederick Hirsch <frederick.hirsch@nokia.com>
> Sent by: public-ws-policy-request@w3.org
> 05/08/2007 05:03 PM
>
> <ecblank.gif>
>
> To
> <ecblank.gif>
>
> ws policy <public-ws-policy@w3.org>
> <ecblank.gif>
>
> cc
> <ecblank.gif>
>
> Hirsch Frederick <frederick.hirsch@nokia.com>
> <ecblank.gif>
>
> Subject
> <ecblank.gif>
>
> Client policy processing
> <ecblank.gif>
> <ecblank.gif>
>
>
> Is it correct to say:
>
> 1. Client has access to its own policy, the provider policy and the
> result of intersection which it performed
> 2. Result of intersection is a policy in its own right, and has no
> implicit meaning other than what is stated in that policy (with its
> own vocabulary)
> HOWEVER
> 3. Client can interpret that result-of-intersection policy together
> with provider policy to infer acceptable interactions with provider,
> based on vocabulary present in provider policy.
>
> Thus the policy that results from intersection itself does not say
> negation, but it can be inferred from that policy taken in
> conjunction with provider policy.
>
> Is this an approach toward making this less confusing?
>
> Thanks
>
> regards, Frederick
>
> Frederick Hirsch
> Nokia
>
>
>
>






graycol.gif
(image/gif attachment: graycol.gif)

pic04458.gif
(image/gif attachment: pic04458.gif)

ecblank.gif
(image/gif attachment: ecblank.gif)

Received on Sunday, 20 May 2007 06:26:31 UTC

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