Re: Amended text and discussion of Issue 4393

> Glen Daniels wrote: "Regardless of the chosen intersection mode, 
> ignorable assertions do not express any concrete requirements on the 
> behavior of consumers - in other words, a consumer is free to ignore 
> (hence the name "ignorable") any such assertions that end up in the 
> resulting policy after interesection, with no adverse effects on 
> runtime interactions."...

monica: Glen I can live with this if we revise slightly to be more 
succinct [1] and also maintain consistency with Section 2.7 [2]:

    [change from / Glen's] "Regardless of the chosen intersection mode,
    ignorable assertions do not express any concrete requirements on the
    behavior of consumers - in other words, a consumer is free to ignore
    (hence the name "ignorable") any such assertions that end up in the
    resulting policy after interesection, with no adverse effects on
    runtime interactions."

    [change to / updated] "Regardless of the chosen intersection mode,
    ignorable assertions do not express any wire-level requirements on
    the behavior of consumers - in other words, a consumer could choose
    to ignore any such assertions that end up in the resulting policy
    after interesection, with no adverse effects on runtime interactions."

[1] Note, I've deleted "hence..." emphasis as it really isn't needed as 
the first part of the sentence clearly states 'ignorable assertions'.
[2] Note, Suggest we use 'wire-level' rather than 'concrete', consistent 
with Section 2.7 that states:

   "This behavior has no direct impact on the messages sent on the wire, 
and does not affect interoperability."

There may be other points you made in your email that I could be 
addressed further separately. Thanks.

Received on Thursday, 12 April 2007 18:23:20 UTC