- From: Yalcinalp, Umit <umit.yalcinalp@sap.com>
- Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 12:29:04 -0700
- To: "William Henry" <william.henry@iona.com>, "Beryozkin, Sergey" <Sergey.Beryozkin@iona.com>
- Cc: "Frederick Hirsch" <frederick.hirsch@nokia.com>, <public-ws-policy@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <2BA6015847F82645A9BB31C7F9D64165026D1A17@uspale20.pal.sap.corp>
Nothing has been decided on whether wsp:local is not needed, although some members of the tc probably wish that is the case :-D. The debate is still whether optional="true" is appropriate to advertise features that may not pertain to an interaction. --umit ________________________________ From: William Henry [mailto:william.henry@iona.com] Sent: Wednesday, Oct 18, 2006 10:52 AM To: Beryozkin, Sergey Cc: Frederick Hirsch; Yalcinalp, Umit; public-ws-policy@w3.org Subject: Re: NEW ISSUE: New Attribute keyword to identify 'local' policies #3721 I'm getting confused now. I've obviously missed some of the discussion. So it looks like wsp:local (or wsp:advisory) is not needed. People have decided on trying to use wsp:optional for advertising features? Is this right? (That will require extra work for dealing with multiple assertions due to normalization. Right?) And on the subject of stripping out policies we are leaving that to implementors with custom attributes. ?? William On Oct 18, 2006, at 11:27 AM, Beryozkin, Sergey wrote: HI William "The idea of using this as a mechanism for providers to strip on configuration information gets weaker - especially when making the above argument. "How do it know?" ;-) to strip or not to strip? That ideas was that wsp:local would provide a consistent approach for providers to have a way of stripping out such local policies before publishing. But how do you distinguish between those that get stripped out and those that get advertised." Just don't put wsp:local on those assertions you want to make visible to requesters. I think what you're talking about is very close to waht Frederick suggests with a wsp:advisory <mailto:wsp@advisory> attribute. They mark assertions of interest to providers, clients might choose to notice it or ignore it. So suppose we have wsp:advisory, I thinbk it would be a better name then. And we also have wsp:optional which can be used to mark assertions which a requester can choose to ignore. I think we'll have an overlap and more confusion as a result. I think I like wsp:advisory, just feeling that if we adopt a new attribute overlapping with wsp:optional then we'll have more complexity in the end I believe it will be simplier if a wording for wsp:optional is updated given that wsp:optional is about assertions which are not optional for a provider but optional for a requester to consume... . Cheers, Sergey ----- Original Message ----- From: William Henry <mailto:william.henry@iona.com> To: Beryozkin, Sergey <mailto:Sergey.Beryozkin@iona.com> Cc: Frederick Hirsch <mailto:frederick.hirsch@nokia.com> ; Yalcinalp, Umit <mailto:umit.yalcinalp@sap.com> ; public-ws-policy@w3.org <mailto:public-ws-policy@w3.org> Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2006 6:05 PM Subject: Re: NEW ISSUE: New Attribute keyword to identify 'local' policies #3721 Hi folks, The more I think about this the more I'm convinced that it is more appropriate for advertising features or qualities of service that do not require action by the consumer. So using an earlier example that Sergey used with a modification <wsdl:port> <soap:address location="http://foo <http://foo> "/> <wsp:Policy>... <sp:HTTPSToken/> <custom:HighAvailability wsp:local="true"/> </wsp:Policy> </wsdl:port> Though HighAvailability might require the server to do some extra configuration the reason for putting it in the WSDL is not for configuration but for providing extra information that MAY be of interest to the consumer but would NOT prohibit the consumer from using the service if they can't understand it - they can ignore it. The idea of using this as a mechanism for providers to strip on configuration information gets weaker - especially when making the above argument. "How do it know?" ;-) to strip or not to strip? That ideas was that wsp:local would provide a consistent approach for providers to have a way of stripping out such local policies before publishing. But how do you distinguish between those that get stripped out and those that get advertised. Furthermore people in this group would say that that is really up to the implementor and they can be responsible. (Dan holds this position) HOWEVER, in this case this is also the issue of portability. A provider that is using policies defined by another vendor that has significance for the provider but not for the consumer would like to understand how to handle this consistently. So for third party policies one can imagine that a consistent way of stripping these out would be useful. So then does wsp:local (or whatever it's name is) have true, false, provideronly ??????? Otherwise how do we distinguish between advertise-as-a-feature Vs. provider-should-strip-before-publish? Regards, William On Oct 6, 2006, at 3:17 AM, Beryozkin, Sergey wrote: Hi Frederick, Sorry for a late response. First of all I'd like to draw a line between wsp:optional and something like wsp:local. We do not see any relationship between wsp:optional and wsp:local. The differentiator between wsp:local and wsp:optional is simple. wsp:local marks assertions which are only intended for a provider. Provider *should do the best effort to strip such assertions out* of the policy to be published. If such an assertion is leaked then the only thing the client knows about it is that it has to skip it and move on to the next assertion. Client may choose to notice it but there're absolutely no obligations on the provider's behalf as to whether this assertion will be honoured or not. wsp:local assertions are not the ones WS-Policy framework primer talks about when recommending best practices for policy authors. Good interoperatable policy assertion is the one which is understood and used by both parties involved. So why do we even want to create a noise in the WS-Policy space with wsp:local ? We feel there might some scenarios which I'll address in a follow-up message... On the contrary wsp:optional and the whole optionality tar ball is about assertions which may be of use for requesters. wsp:local assertions may not be of use for requesters. Optionality is a hint to a requestor. >From the provider's point view wsp:optional assertions are not optional at all, it guarantees to support them. Given what I've said I'd like to say that I agree with some parts of your message but here're two parts which I'n not happy about :-) : > 2) The client can choose to include or not in intersection operation, > depending on interest. I don't think wsp:local assertions can be of any interest to a client. I don't think we need a new attribute like wsp:local for assertions which a client may want to do something useful about. Policy alternatives/wsp:optional will do just fine for this to work. > Without wsp:local/wsp:optional all assertions MUST be included in > intersection operation. Please see above. Lets just draw the line between wsp:local and wsp:optional :-) > 3) This is additional information that a client might wish to consider. Please see above. If it is of any use to a client then it's not a wsp:local assertion Thanks, Sergey > 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 <mailto: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/ <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 <mailto:umit.yalcinalp@sap.com> Tel: (650) 320-3095 >> SDN: https://www.sdn.sap.com/irj/sdn/weblogs?blog=/pub/u/36238 <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, 18 October 2006 19:31:39 UTC