- From: Sverdlov, Yakov <Yakov.Sverdlov@ca.com>
- Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 11:01:01 -0400
- To: "Ashok Malhotra" <ashok.malhotra@oracle.com>, "Frederick Hirsch" <frederick.hirsch@nokia.com>
- Cc: <public-ws-policy@w3.org>
+1 to Ashok and Frederick to treat "optionality" and "local" as orthogonal with the Ashok's qualifier that "local" assertions may be specified for any entity in interaction. I think adding the local attribute will introduce the ownership concept in the specification, which I initially opposed. At the same, having this attribute in combination with the policy subject will make it easier to deal with entity/policy bindings. Regards, Yakov Sverdlov CA -----Original Message----- From: public-ws-policy-request@w3.org [mailto:public-ws-policy-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Ashok Malhotra Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2006 6:56 PM To: Frederick Hirsch Cc: Frederick Hirsch; public-ws-policy@w3.org Subject: RE: optionality and provider-only orthogonal Great! We agree. 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 2:56 PM > To: ext Ashok Malhotra > Cc: Frederick Hirsch; public-ws-policy@w3.org > Subject: Re: optionality and provider-only orthogonal > > > 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 Thursday, 26 October 2006 15:01:17 UTC