- From: Sergey Beryozkin <sergey.beryozkin@iona.com>
- Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 13:24:42 +0100
- To: "Fabian Ritzmann" <Fabian.Ritzmann@Sun.COM>, "Daniel Roth" <Daniel.Roth@microsoft.com>
- Cc: "Frederick Hirsch" <frederick.hirsch@nokia.com>, "Yalcinalp, Umit" <umit.yalcinalp@sap.com>, <public-ws-policy@w3.org>
Hi > I agree if these assertions only have a meaning to the entity to which a > policy is attached. But you might e.g. have service brokers that > understand only those assertions that are necessary for their operation, > while the actual services and clients have a richer vocabulary. Or you > might have service assertions that are proprietary to a vendor and only > have a meaning for the web service clients from that vendor. This sounds like a good example to me, especially the first one where stripping such service server-only assertions may not work... For the second example I think existing policy alternatives will work... Cheers, Sergey > > Fabian >
Received on Tuesday, 17 October 2006 12:25:12 UTC