RE: Are nested assertions part of the policy vocabulary?

Glen,
I think the problem is that the assertions are really trying to express a 
constraint .....and should be something 
like "nonAnonymousONLY".  so the absence, is not the absence of support 
but rather the absence of the constraint.

And in this case I think the " no constraints" is  sufficient for your use 
case
The client has no constraints on what the provider will do.
That should intersect with all the provider options.

I hope we can talk this through on the call.
Maryann



"Glen Daniels" <gdaniels@progress.com> 
Sent by: public-ws-policy-request@w3.org
04/04/2007 09:59 AM

To
"Monica J. Martin" <Monica.Martin@Sun.COM>, "Ashok Malhotra" 
<ashok.malhotra@oracle.com>
cc
<public-ws-policy@w3.org>
Subject
RE: Are nested assertions part of the policy vocabulary?







Hi Monica:

I'm a little confused here.  Are you and MaryAnn indeed saying that
selecting the first alternative in Ashok's (and indeed WS-Addressing's)
example means that neither anonymous nor non-anonymous responses are
allowed?  That certainly isn't the goal of the policy, and indeed this
interpretation would seem to disallow ANY kind of response.

How would you write a consumer policy which was meant to successfully
intersect with endpoint policies which either a) express nothing about
anonymous responses, b) express a requirement for anonymous responses,
or c) express a requirement for non-anonymous responses?

--Glen

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-ws-policy-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:public-ws-policy-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Monica J. Martin
> Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2007 5:30 PM
> To: Ashok Malhotra
> Cc: public-ws-policy@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Are nested assertions part of the policy vocabulary?
> 
> 
> 
> hondo: Ashok,
> My response is yes.
> Maryann
> 
>  >>mm1: Ashok, agree with MaryAnn on question one answer - this point 
> has been made that the nested assertions are part of the policy 
> vocabulary.  Yet, an important point associated with this surrounds 
> whether or not the guiding conformance [1] requires support for those 
> response types - that provides substance on your second 
> question and its 
> disposition.. [2]
> 
> We also state in Section 3.2 Framework before the statement you cite:
> 
>     An alternative with zero assertions indicates no behaviors. An
>     alternative with one or more assertions indicates 
> behaviors implied
>     by those, and only those assertions.
> 
> Remember: (no position just stating the action-result), we augmented 
> this text in 
> http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=3602 Issue 3602.
> 
> [1] WS-A specification(s) referenced
> [2] Related to empty and the base assumptions of WS-Addressing.
> 
> >Ashok Malhotra wrote: Section 3.2 of Framework says "When an 
> assertion whose type is part of the policy's vocabulary is 
> not included in a policy alternative, the policy alternative 
> without the assertion type indicates that the assertion will 
> not be applied in the context of the attached policy 
> subject."    Are nested assertions included in the policy's 
> vocabulary?
> >
> >Consider the following example:
> >
> >  <wsp:ExactlyOne>
> >        <wsp:All>
> >            <wsam:Addressing> <-- supports all response 
> types --> Alternative 1
> >                <wsp:Policy> 
> >                </wsp:Policy>
> >            </wsam:Addressing>
> >        </wsp:All>
> >        <wsp:All>
> >            <wsam:Addressing> <-- requires Anonymous 
> responses --> Alternative 2
> >                <wsp:Policy>
> >                          <AnonymousResponses />
> >                </wsp:Policy>
> >            </wsam:Addressing>
> >        </wsp:All>
> >        <wsp:All>
> >            <wsam:Addressing> <-  requires nonAnonymous 
> responses --> Alternative 3
> >                <wsp:Policy>
> >                          <NonAnonymousResponses />
> >                </wsp:Policy>
> >            </wsam:Addressing>
> >        </wsp:All>
> >    </wsp:ExactlyOne>
> ></wsp:Policy>
> >
> >If Alternative 1 is selected, does this mean that neither 
> Anonymous responses nor NonAnonymous responses are allowed as 
> both are part of the policy vocabulary but not included in 
> the alternative.
> >
> >All the best, Ashok
> >
> > 
> >
> 
> 
> 
>