NEW ISSUE: Clarification on 4.3.2 in framework around normalizing method assertions

Title: Clarification on 4.3.2 in framework around normalizing method assertions.
 
Description: Section 4.3.2 in the framwrork document describes nested policy assertions and the recursive normalization mechanism to be used for nested assertions. It seems that the section might need to be re-written and clarified.
 
Justification: During the April 2006 WS-Policy interop in Germany[1], some participants felt that the section was confusing as to how the recursive mechanism was to be implemented to transform a complex policy with nested elements into a normalized policy with a set of non-nested policy alternatives contained in an <ExactlyOne> element. This action item was captured in [2]
 
Target: WS-Policy 1.5 Framework document
 
Proposal: I have to admit that I personally found the section relatively clear. The only improvement I could think of is to make use of depth-first tree traversal analogies or factorization of logical operations analogies. For example, given the expression:
{A AND [B AND (C XOR D)] AND E}
recursively turn it into:
{A AND [(B AND C) XOR (B AND D)] AND E}
then:
{[A AND B AND C AND E] XOR [A AND B AND D AND E]}
or some such example (pardon the pseudo-logic here), but I'm not sure that clarifies things for most people (!)
Having spent some time on this, I'd like to ask the people who found the section to be counter-intuitive to submit a proposal.
 
References:
[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2006Jul/att-0043/WSP-Interop.pdf
[2] http://www.w3.org/2006/07/13-ws-policy-minutes.html#action33
 
Toufic Boubez, Ph.D.
Chief Technology Officer
 
LAYER 7 TECHNOLOGIES / Advancing the application network.
604.681.9377 x310 (w)   604.288.7970 (m)
tboubez@layer7tech.com <mailto:tboubez@layer7tech.com>  (e)  www.layer7tech.com (w)