- From: Ashok Malhotra <ashok.malhotra@oracle.com>
- Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2006 14:11:47 -0700
- To: "Frederick Hirsch" <frederick.hirsch@nokia.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: Prasad also sent a note saying that he supports such an attribute. Paul: Can we get the WG to consider this? All the best, Ashok > -----Original Message----- > From: public-ws-policy-request@w3.org > [mailto:public-ws-policy-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Frederick Hirsch > Sent: Monday, October 09, 2006 11:11 AM > To: ext Ashok Malhotra > Cc: Frederick Hirsch; Paul Cotton; Sergey Beryozkin; > public-ws-policy@w3.org > Subject: Re: NEW ISSUE :Clarify usage of assertions with no > behavioral requirements on the requeste > > > 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 21:12:18 UTC