- From: Frederick Hirsch <frederick.hirsch@nokia.com>
- Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2006 15:03:32 -0400
- To: ext Sergey Beryozkin <sergey.beryozkin@iona.com>
- Cc: Frederick Hirsch <frederick.hirsch@nokia.com>, "Yalcinalp, Umit" <umit.yalcinalp@sap.com>, <public-ws-policy@w3.org>
Sergey It was mentioned by Fabian on the call today that different assertions can have different properties, and I think this is where we are heading with wsp:local/wsp:advisory (alternative names for the same concept and attribute) In general an assertion present in a policy assertion means that the client MUST understand that assertion and that the provider WILL support it. This is regardless of whether the assertion has a wire implication. Using wsp:optional enables policy alternatives to be easily created, either requiring and asserting the assertion and not. However there are cases where wsp:optional is not what is desired, and where wsp:local/wsp:advisory is needed. The use case is that a provider should be able to state an assertion that will be in effect, but it obeys the following properties: 1) It can safely be ignored by web service client, even though true. The provider is making no obligation to the client. It has no essential impact on a contract between client and provider. An example is an assertion that server logging is performed (e.g. clients might not care about it, but it is *not* optional in the sense that the server *will* do it). 1a) Assertions that imply mutual contract between client and provider cannot be wsp:local/wsp:advisory. These include + Assertions that impact wire formats + Assertions that define quality of service (service level agreements), quality/reliable messaging. 2) The client can choose to include or not in intersection operation, depending on interest. Without wsp:local/wsp:optional all assertions MUST be included in intersection operation. 3) This is additional information that a client might wish to consider. we need to distinguish optional for agreement of a contract with or without an asserted requirement/capability and informational items that are not necessarily optional. regards, Frederick Frederick Hirsch Nokia On Oct 4, 2006, at 4:30 AM, ext Sergey Beryozkin wrote: > Hi > > Reference to the thread[1] is misleading IMHO. > I was stating from the start that a proposed wsp:local was nothing > to do with what is discussed in that thread. The semantics of > wsp:local are : mark assertions which *must be ignored* by a > requester. That is it, no more semantics... > > Thanks, Sergey > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Yalcinalp, Umit > To: public-ws-policy@w3.org > Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2006 11:44 PM > Subject: Re: NEW ISSUE: New Attribute keyword to identify 'local' > policies #3721 > > > There has been a lot of discussion on Issues 3721 and 3564. I am > posting this response to this thread in order to illustrate why > there are two separate issues that need to be tackled > independently. However, they are NOT the same issue. Utilization of > optional assertions is a separate concern and those issues must not > be lumped together. > > Please find some comments in a different thread that explains why > there are two separate issues here for the details [1]. > > Thanks, > > --umit > > [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2006Oct/ > 0016.html > > ---------------------- > > Dr. Umit Yalcinalp > Architect > NetWeaver Industry Standards > SAP Labs, LLC > Email: umit.yalcinalp@sap.com Tel: (650) 320-3095 > SDN: https://www.sdn.sap.com/irj/sdn/weblogs?blog=/pub/u/36238 > -------- > "First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, > then they fight you, then you win." Gandhi > >
Received on Wednesday, 4 October 2006 19:03:57 UTC