W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-policy@w3.org > November 2006

Re: Proposed Resolution - 3721 and 3789

From: Sergey Beryozkin <sergey.beryozkin@iona.com>
Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2006 12:19:04 -0000
Message-ID: <060501c703f9$3f852960$3901020a@sberyoz>
To: "Paul Cotton" <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, "Asir Vedamuthu" <asirveda@microsoft.com>, <public-ws-policy@w3.org>

I'd like to ask for some clarifications...I truly appreciate a lot that the group has spent so much time and effort on resolving the issues we've submitted. The questions I'd like to ask are below and I'd really appreciate you spending some more time on them. I'm questioning the addition (or treatment, depend on the answers) of a new attribute and I'd simply like the clarification. Please try to look at them not as some negative comments. 

1. <iona:highlyAvailable/> assertion has these semantics : a client runtime which understands what it is may load a plugin which will tell it to enumerate between mutiple service endpoints in case of a communication failure with a given endpoint. No wire representation. How should we mark it so that we can interopreate with third-party clients operating in both strict and lax mode.

2. Will 'strict' mode cause the intersection fail if a provider's policy contains wsp:MayBeIgnored assertions ?  If yes, then how does it help interoperability ? Can a strict mode intersection succeed when we have wsp:MayBeIgnored assertions ?

3. Why would a requester's policy requirement ever contain wsp:MayBeIgnored assertions ? Just so that the revised intersection algorithm could work ? How can a third-party requester anticipate that a provider's policy mat contain wsp:MayBeIgnored assertions ?

4. What is the difference between a compatibility and equivalence ? If these are two diff terms then which one matters during the intersection ? Proposed resolution says that two assertions are equivalent only if they're both ones are either not-ignorable or ignorable.

5. Proposed resoultion that by default assertions are not ignorable for intersection purposes. Can someone tell me please if wsp:Optional assertions are ignorable for intersection purposes ? If they're then this text is misleading. 

Please answer to all these questions.

Many thanks

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Paul Cotton" <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>
To: "Asir Vedamuthu" <asirveda@microsoft.com>; <public-ws-policy@w3.org>
Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2006 10:21 PM
Subject: RE: Proposed Resolution - 3721 and 3789

Attached are the notes of proposed changes to the 3721/3789 proposal that I took at today's F2F meeting.


From: public-ws-policy-request@w3.org [public-ws-policy-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Asir Vedamuthu [asirveda@microsoft.com]
Sent: November 8, 2006 12:31 PM
To: public-ws-policy@w3.org
Subject: Proposed Resolution - 3721 and 3789

Please find a proposal to resolve issues 3721 and 3789.

On behalf of Maryann Hondo, Daniel Roth and Asir S Vedamuthu,

Asir S Vedamuthu
Microsoft Corporation
Received on Thursday, 9 November 2006 12:18:01 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:33:18 UTC