- From: Frederick Hirsch <frederick.hirsch@nokia.com>
- Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 17:55:35 -0400
- To: ext Ashok Malhotra <ashok.malhotra@oracle.com>
- Cc: Frederick Hirsch <frederick.hirsch@nokia.com>, "public-ws-policy@w3.org" <public-ws-policy@w3.org>
Ashok makes sense, (was focused on provider, but can apply to both as you note) My goal was to avoid expectation of action based on the knowledge of "local" but simply to flag the fact that not wire impact, local to one party (e.g. provider). regards, Frederick Frederick Hirsch Nokia On Oct 25, 2006, at 4:24 PM, ext Ashok Malhotra wrote: > Frederick: > I agree that ... > >> In other words treat optionality and provider-only as >> orthogonal > > But why provider-only? If we agree on an attribute to indicate that > an assertion applies only to holder of the policy it can apply in any > direction, be that provider or requester. Thus , 'local'. > > 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: Wednesday, October 25, 2006 1:13 PM >> To: public-ws-policy@w3.org >> Cc: Hirsch Frederick >> Subject: optionality and provider-only orthogonal >> >> >> I think I agree with what Umit said during the call, perhaps >> we should flag assertions that only apply to the provider, >> perhaps with a "provider-only" attribute. This is >> declarative of the fact that this assertion has no wire >> impact and only states that the assertion applies to the >> provider. Unlike "local" and "advisory" this does not attempt >> to imply how a client should behave knowing this information. >> >> In other words treat optionality and provider-only as >> orthogonal (especially since optionality is about policy >> alternatives). >> >> regards, Frederick >> >> Frederick Hirsch >> Nokia >> >> >> >> >> >
Received on Wednesday, 25 October 2006 21:56:12 UTC