- From: Monica J. Martin <Monica.Martin@Sun.COM>
- Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2007 13:35:01 -0700
- To: Glen Daniels <gdaniels@progress.com>
- Cc: "public-ws-policy@w3.org" <public-ws-policy@w3.org>
Glen, I am assuming for tomorrow, Glen, that this meets your requirements and mine in finding compromise text [1] to finalize Issue 4393.[2] Thanks. ======== [1] See: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Apr/0041.html (shown below as well). > 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. [2] http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=4393 (issue) last proposal (that is amended by the comments above) http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007Apr/0036.html
Received on Tuesday, 17 April 2007 20:44:31 UTC