RE: NEW ISSUE: New Attribute keyword to identify 'local' policies #3721

Hi Dan:

> One of the conclusions of the WS-Policy interop workshop held 
> in Germany was that even if a policy expression contains an 
> unrecognized policy assertion tools can issue a warning and 
> ignore it.  However, these warning are annoying and alarming 
> to customers, so implementers should avoid leaking out local 
> config assertions.

This seems like a shockingly bad idea....  How could you possibly rely
on the WSP framework to express requirements if you took this kind of
position?  And why do we even bother to have wsp:Optional if
everything's "really" optional?

I'm agog.  Please tell me I misunderstood your comment here somehow and
that you aren't really advocating this.

Thanks,
--Glen