- From: Glen Daniels <gdaniels@progress.com>
- Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2007 10:53:35 -0400
- To: "Maryann Hondo" <mhondo@us.ibm.com>
- Cc: "Ashok Malhotra" <ashok.malhotra@oracle.com>, "Monica J. Martin" <Monica.Martin@Sun.COM>, <public-ws-policy@w3.org>, <public-ws-policy-request@w3.org>
Hi Maryann: > 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. OK, I think I see your interpretation here - this is very tricky stuff. :) As I understand it you're saying that it's OK to select the "empty" version in the case where the provider doesn't specify a constraint assertion (anon/non-anon), and that doing so simply means no constraint exists at runtime. Do you think we need to have WSA amend their spec in order to make this more clear? > I hope we can talk this through on the call. +1 --Glen
Received on Wednesday, 4 April 2007 14:54:23 UTC