RE: Features at Risk

Chris or Tom,

Perhaps someone from the RX-TC should propose an addition to the Primer.
I believe that's where an example would be helpful.

Maryann



Christopher B Ferris/Waltham/IBM@IBMUS 
Sent by: public-ws-policy-request@w3.org
02/09/2007 08:57 AM

To
Asir Vedamuthu <asirveda@microsoft.com>
cc
Paul Cotton <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>, "public-ws-policy@w3.org" 
<public-ws-policy@w3.org>, public-ws-policy-request@w3.org, 
"tom@coastin.com" <tom@coastin.com>
Subject
RE: Features at Risk







An endpoint that publishes an assertion with the DA nested assertion would 
likely leverage 
wsp:Ignorable to enable clients that have no preference to interact 
(because the messages 
on the wire would be identical in every way). 

So, does it use it? Not explicitly. However, in practice, it is likely to 
become quite invaluable 
to those who deploy RM enabled service endpoints. 

Cheers, 

Christopher Ferris
STSM, Software Group Standards Strategy
email: chrisfer@us.ibm.com
blog: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/page/chrisferris
phone: +1 508 377 9295 

public-ws-policy-request@w3.org wrote on 02/09/2007 12:20:30 AM:

> 
> > This feature has already found use in reaching
> > concensus in the WS-RX TC regarding delivery
> > assertion policy assetions.
> 
> Does RM use ignorable policy assertions? Any references?
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Asir S Vedamuthu
> Microsoft Corporation
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-ws-policy-request@w3.org [mailto:public-ws-policy-
> request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Tom Rutt
> Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 12:30 PM
> To: Paul Cotton
> Cc: public-ws-policy@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Features at Risk
> 
> 
> Paul Cotton wrote:
> > This is a reminder that we discussed this proposal at the Feb 7 
> meeting and held off making a decision about the proposed three "at 
> risk" features until next week's meeting.
> >
> I think it is important that Ignorable Policy assertions are not marked
> at risk.
> 
> This feature has already found use in reaching concensus in the WS-RX TC
> regarding delivery
> assertion policy assetions.  Its definition only affects the default
> policy intersection algorithm implementation (unless I am missing
> something more subtle).
> 
> I am against marking a) below as "at risk" feature, because it is so
> important.
> 
> 
> Tom Rutt
> Fujitsu
> > We also agreed to have some email discussion which I am trying to 
> encourage by bringing this back to your attention.
> >
> > /paulc
> >
> > Paul Cotton, Microsoft Canada
> > 17 Eleanor Drive, Ottawa, Ontario K2E 6A3
> > Tel: (613) 225-5445 Fax: (425) 936-7329
> > mailto:Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: public-ws-policy-request@w3.org [mailto:public-ws-policy-
> >> request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Asir Vedamuthu
> >> Sent: February 7, 2007 11:16 AM
> >> To: public-ws-policy@w3.org
> >> Subject: Features at Risk
> >>
> >>
> >> To advance WS-Policy to Proposed Recommendation, the Working Group 
needs
> >> to show that each feature in the Framework and Attachment drafts has 
been
> >> implemented. Thus far, there aren't any publicly visible 
implementations
> >> for the following features:
> >>
> >> a) Ignorable Policy Assertions
> >> b) External Policy Attachment
> >> c) Attaching Policies Using UDDI
> >>
> >> For a successful Candidate Recommendation phase, we request the WG to
> >> consider marking features a)-c) as being at risk (the history is that 
most
> >> of the features marked as being at risk were implemented by multiple
> >> vendors).
> >>
> >> Also, in Nov, W3C requested the Working Group to consider marking 
feature
> >> a) as being at risk [1].
> >>
> >> [1] 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2006Nov/0077.html
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >>
> >> Asir S Vedamuthu
> >> Microsoft Corporation
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> 
> 
> --
> ----------------------------------------------------
> Tom Rutt        email: tom@coastin.com; trutt@us.fujitsu.com
> Tel: +1 732 801 5744          Fax: +1 732 774 5133
> 
> 
> 
>