- From: Anish Karmarkar <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com>
- Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 13:38:53 -0700
- To: tom@coastin.com
- CC: "Rogers, Tony" <Tony.Rogers@ca.com>, public-ws-addressing@w3.org
Not sure, I agree. If AnonResponse means 'anon' uri and 'none' uri are required. Then negation would imply no-anon uri or none uri. -Anish -- Tom Rutt wrote: > > since none means no reply, I do not think we have negation problem with it. > > Tom > > Anish Karmarkar wrote: >> >> Rogers, Tony wrote: >>> I believe we have always intended that the "none" URI is acceptable >>> for any response EPR. >>> >> >> That is exactly the issue. Because of this, the assertions become >> overlapping. When one brings in the negation effect because of >> alternatives, this results in self-contradiction. >> >> -Anish >> -- >> >>> I wonder if we need another assertion to state that the "none" URI is >>> explicitly not allowed? I'd strongly prefer that it be an assertion >>> that "none" is NOT acceptable, rather than have an assertion that it >>> was acceptable (because it is permitted all the time at the moment). >>> Then if you specify AnonResponse + NoneUnacceptable you would be >>> insisting upon the Anon URI (because the None URI is forbidden). >>> >>> Why do I think I may regret asking this question? >>> >>> Tony Rogers >>> CA, Inc >>> Senior Architect, Development >>> tony.rogers@ca.com <mailto:tony.rogers@ca.com> >>> co-chair UDDI TC at OASIS >>> co-chair WS-Desc WG at W3C >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> *From:* public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org on behalf of Anish Karmarkar >>> *Sent:* Mon 16-Apr-07 12:55 >>> *To:* public-ws-addressing@w3.org >>> *Subject:* Policy alternatives, negation, [Non]AnonResponse assertion >>> and the none URI >>> >>> >>> There is view among the WS-Policy wonks (not sure how widely accepted >>> this is or whether the WS-Policy specs explicitly calls this out) that >>> when there are alternatives present and the selected alternative does >>> not contain an assertion X but another alternative does, then the effect >>> of such a selection consists of negation of X. >>> >>> We have two assertions AnonResponse and NonAnonResponse assertions. Both >>> of them require that the 'none' URI be allowed for the response EPR. >>> Does that mean that negation of any of these implies 'none' must not be >>> used? >>> >>> If so, that is a problem, none is useful for things like one-way >>> operations that don't use the response EPR for that MEP. >>> >>> Additionally, if one has two alternatives one with AnonResponse only and >>> one with NonAnonResponse only, then that would be self-contradictory. >>> >>> -Anish >>> -- >>> >>> >>> >> >> >
Received on Monday, 16 April 2007 20:40:34 UTC