- From: Frederick Hirsch <frederick.hirsch@nokia.com>
- Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2006 14:10:59 -0400
- To: ext Ashok Malhotra <ashok.malhotra@oracle.com>
- Cc: Frederick Hirsch <frederick.hirsch@nokia.com>, "Paul Cotton" <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, "Sergey Beryozkin" <sergey.beryozkin@iona.com>, "public-ws-policy@w3.org" <public-ws-policy@w3.org>
this is what I was trying to suggest with wsp:advisory: client does not need to include in intersection algorithm, but optionality is not meaningful. regards, Frederick Frederick Hirsch Nokia On Oct 6, 2006, at 6:48 PM, ext Ashok Malhotra wrote: > I'm sorry, but I disagree with this direction. wsp:Optional is > orthogonal to assertions that > that have no behavioral requirements (or do not affect the wire > format). > > wsp:Optional is used to indicate that an assertion may or may not > be used. For assertions > that do not affect the wire format this has no meaning. These > assertions are in some sense > just advertising. The provider says "I will keep yr information > confidential" -- well fine, but how > would Optional apply to such an assertion or, more strongly, make > sense with such an assertion. > Would you want two alternatives that say keep it confidential and > don't keep it confidential? > OK. If you want that you can say that but that has no relation to > whether the assertion impacts > the wire format or not. > > I support an attribute that marks such assertions as "non- > operational" and so takes them out > of the intersection algorithm. This would simplify policy processing. > > All the best, Ashok > > > > From: public-ws-policy-request@w3.org [mailto:public-ws-policy- > request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Paul Cotton > Sent: Friday, October 06, 2006 10:57 AM > To: Sergey Beryozkin; public-ws-policy@w3.org > Subject: RE: NEW ISSUE :Clarify usage of assertions with no > behavioral requirements on the requeste > > >1. Add an example to a primer and/or policy guidelines > > > > Can you formulate your required example even in outline form? > > > > >2. Explain why policy authors should make such assertions optional > for those requesters which are not aware of them. > > > > I assume you want this text in the primer and/or guidelines doc. > Is that correct? > > > > If so can you offer proposed text? > > > > > 3. Make any necessary changes to the wsp:optional related wording > so that a policy author can use wsp:optional as a recognized but > not a workaround way to mark such assertions. > > > > Can you please clarify what you mean by “so that a policy author > can use wsp:optional as a recognized but not a workaround to mark > such assertions”? > > > > Are you saying the Framework should warn policy assertion authors > from using wsp:optional to describe “assertions with no behavioural > requirements on the requester”? > > > > /paulc > > Paul Cotton, Microsoft Canada > 17 Eleanor Drive, Ottawa, Ontario K2E 6A3 > Tel: (613) 225-5445 Fax: (425) 936-7329 > mailto:Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com > > > > > From: public-ws-policy-request@w3.org [mailto:public-ws-policy- > request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Sergey Beryozkin > Sent: October 6, 2006 6:27 AM > To: Sergey Beryozkin; public-ws-policy@w3.org > Subject: Re: NEW ISSUE :Clarify usage of assertions with no > behavioral requirements on the requeste > > > > Hello, > > > > This is the resolution I think would adequately address this issue : > > > > 1. Add an example to a primer and/or policy guidelines > 2. Explain why policy authors should make such assertions optional > for those requesters which are not aware of them. > 3. Make any necessary changes to the wsp:optional related wording > so that a policy author can use wsp:optional as a recognized but > not a workaround way to mark such assertions. > > > > Thanks, Sergey > > > > http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=3789 > > Target : WS-Policy Framework and policy guidelines > > Justification : > > There's a class of policy assertions which have no behavioral > requirements on the requester but can be still usefully processed by > requesters which are aware > of what assertions mean. > For example : <oasis:Replicatable/> > > An assertion like this one can be a useful source of information > for requesters. Providers having expected properties like > <oasis:Replicatable/> can be chosen/searched. > At the same time, given the fact assertions like <oasis:Replicatable/> > have no behavioral requirements on the provider it's important to > ensure > policy-aware clients which have no knowledge of these assertions > can proceed > consuming the service advertsing this assertion. > > Currently the way to advertise such an assertion is to use a normal > form with two policy alternatives(simple case), with only one > alternative containing this assertion thus making it optional, or, > in other words, giving a chance to requesters to ignore it. > Such normal form expression is equivalent to a compact form with > the optional assertion marked with wsp:optional attribute with a > value 'true'. > > However, at the moment the primer recommends using wsp:optional > when one needs to mark asssertions which identify optional > capabilities/requirements with behavioral requirements on a > requester should the requester wishes to use it. > > Thus marking assertions like <oasis:Replicatable/> with > wsp:optional is considered to be a wrong approach. > > Proposal : > > Clarify the text describing the optionality in the policy > guidelines and in the Framework spec on how a policy author should use > assertions like > <oasis:Replicatable/>. > It's important that assertions like these can be usefully > interpreted by knowledgeble requesters and safely ignored by > requesters > unaware of them. > >
Received on Monday, 9 October 2006 18:14:39 UTC