looking for clarification on action item 43


I am working on the Editors action,  #43, working group action #108, and I 
have a question.

This is the text in the AI.... 

Add adopted guidance to Guidelines document for Issue 3577
2006-09-20: Adopted text for Issue 3577 is: "If you don't recognize a 
QName, you cannot guarantee anything about the compatibility of the 
intersected alternatives." 
2006-09-21: Corresponding Editors' AI is (43): 

in the bug 3577......it says .... to add text to the Framework....

Resolved at Sept F2F meeting:

Add text like the following to the Framework:

a) If domain-specific intersection alg is required you will know that by 
at the Qname. 

b) If domain-specific intersection alg is required you will know that by 
at the Qname. 

What we currently have in the Guidelines is the following section....

 Comparison of Nested and Parametrized Assertions

       The main consideration for selecting parameters or nesting
        of assertions, is that the framework intersection
        algorithm processes nested alternatives, but does not consider
        parameters in its algorithm.

       Domain authors should recognize that the framework can
        yield multiple assertions of the same type. The QName
        of the assertion is the only vehicle for the framework to
        match a specific assertion, NOT the contents of the
        element. If the assertion is a parameterized assertion the
        authors must understand that this type of assertion will
        require additional processing by consumers in order to
        disambiguate the assertions or to understand the semantics of
        the name value pairs, complex content, attribute values
        contribution to the processing. Therefore, if the domain
        authors want to delegate the processing to the framework,
        utilizing nesting should be considered. Otherwise, domain
        specific comparison algorithms would need to be devised and be
        delegated to the specific domain handlers that are not visible
        to the WS-Policy framework. The tradeoff is the generality
        vs. the flexibility and complexity of the comparison expected
        for a domain.

Is this sufficient?
Is there a related change needed to the Framework?


Received on Wednesday, 4 October 2006 22:06:30 UTC