Re: Initial proposal for Issue 4041

Hi

Here's some comments on the section 2.7 "Ignorable assertions" in the primer.

I disagree with the way this section introduces ignorable assertions. Specifically it states that Contoso marks the Logging assertion as wsp:ignorable in order to address the concerns of the customers who might be concerned about Contoso doing logging. I feel that this is not a right message. 
What this section actually does in the introduction is it explains what a strict mode can be used for, but not why providers would mark their assertions as wsp:ignorable. It's requesters who are selecting strict mode if they're uncomfotable with ignoring the unrecognized assertions.

Providers mark their assertion as wsp:ignorable not because they're concerned about some requesters be uneasy about the semantics of this (possibly unknown to them) assertion and hence choosing the intersection to fail. 

Providers do so in order to widen the reach of such the assertion. First of all, by including such the assertion in their policy, providers obviously want this assertion be of useful info to someone out there who understands what it's all about. At the same time, they want those requesters who unaware what it's about to be able to ignore it.
I propose for this section' first paragraph be rewritten. I also suggest to present wsp:ignorable as informational assertions in the second paragraph, this would mark a clearer border between wsp:ignorable and wsp:optional. Additionally, I would propose to use a more realistic assertion example instead of <logging/>

Thanks, Sergey


> Attached is Word version as well.
> 
> regards, Frederick
> 
> Frederick Hirsch
> Nokia
> 
> 
> On Jan 15, 2007, at 10:26 AM, Frederick Hirsch wrote:
> 
>> Attached are both clean and red-lined versions (PDF)
>>
>> regards, Frederick
>>
>> Frederick Hirsch
>> Nokia
>>
>>
>> On Jan 11, 2007, at 11:57 AM, ext Prasad Yendluri wrote:
>>
>>> Frederick,
>>>
>>> Thanks for the updated version that accounted for my comments.
>>> I am good with your changes.
>>>
>>> Could you please send a version that does not have the change marks?
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Prasad
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: public-ws-policy-request@w3.org
>>> [mailto:public-ws-policy-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Frederick  
>>> Hirsch
>>> Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2007 6:52 AM
>>> To: ext Prasad Yendluri
>>> Cc: Hirsch Frederick; public-ws-policy@w3.org
>>> Subject: Re: Initial proposal for Issue 4041
>>>
>>> [removing editors from cc list since this is on the work group thread
>>> now which includes all editors]
>>>
>>> Prasad
>>>
>>> comments in line, but I agree with your concerns and attach a
>>> concrete amendment to the draft.
>>>
>>> This message contains 4 proposed amendments to the draft distributed
>>> to the work group
>>> (ignorable-proposal-v3.pdf). I've attached a red-line to show in
>>> context the proposed amendments.
>>>
>>> Amendment #1
>>> Replace 2nd paragraph lines 16-24 with the following text:
>>>
>>> "The use of the Ignorable attribute allows providers to clearly
>>> indicate which policy assertions indicate behaviors that don't always
>>> manifest on the wire and may not necessarily be of concern to a
>>> requestor. Using the Optional attribute would be incorrect in this
>>> scenario, since it would indicate that the behavior would not occur
>>> if the alternative without the assertion were selected. "
>>>
>>> Amendment #2
>>> Remove 3rd paragraph entirely (lines 26-29).
>>>
>>> Amendment #3
>>>
>>> Add following text to follow second paragraph (at line 25)
>>> "It is incumbent of Providers to declare the behaviors that will be
>>> engaged using policies although those behaviors may not exhibit wire
>>> level manifestations. The Ignorable attribute allows them (policy
>>> providers) to do so."
>>>
>>> Amendment #4
>>>
>>> Since the material around proposed 2.7 is written in terms of XML, I
>>> propose we uniformly refer to ignorable in terms of the Ignorable
>>> attribute. Please see the red-line for details of this change.
>>>
>>> Thanks Prasad for the useful review.
>>>
>>>
>>> Frederick Hirsch
>>> Nokia
>>>
>>>
>>> On Jan 10, 2007, at 7:02 PM, ext Prasad Yendluri wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Frederick,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Again thanks for the detailed work on this.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I have a few comments as enumerated below:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 1.       Lines 29-31 state
>>>>
>>>>   "To mark an assertion as "Ignorable" the policy assertion
>>>> definition must be examined to determine that it has no wire
>>>> behavior and that it is allowed to be marked as Ignorable"
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This is not true. We discussed this aspect during the discussion
>>>> that added the "ignorable" marker but, the current WS-Policy 1.5
>>>> Framework specification does not impose any such restrictions on
>>>> assertions that can be marked "Ignorable". All assertions that have
>>>> wire manifestation or not can be marked "Ignorable". I raised this
>>>> aspect myself at the Boston F2F and I was overruled J
>>>
>>> I agree and believe we should remove this restriction. I propose
>>> amendment #1 to fix this.
>>>
>>> (Note that if there is a wire manifestation then I'm not sure I
>>> understand how it can be ignored)
>>>> 2.  The sentence that follows the above text "Assertion authors
>>>> need to clarify that assertions may be marked as "Ignorable".
>>>>
>>>> Not sure what this is conveying? Or how it follows the no wire
>>>> manifestation aspect of ignorable assertions stated above.
>>>>
>>>> Need more clarity on what this is saying.
>>>
>>> Along with your first point, if we adjust that, then this can be
>>> removed.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The famous one (editor's special :):  "The Ignorable marker allows
>>>> them (policy providers) to be truthful."
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The Ignorable marker does not make the policy providers truthful.
>>>>
>>>> A simple "to do so" is enough, as the previous statements clearly
>>>> articulate the need to declare all behaviors that will be engaged.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I suggest a rephrase as follows:
>>>>
>>>> "It is incumbent of Providers to declare the behaviors that will be
>>>> engaged using policies although those behaviors may not exhibit
>>>> wire level manifestations.
>>>>
>>>> The Ignorable marker allows them (policy providers) to do so."
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> I prefer this.
>>>
>>>> 4.      The "Ignorable" is referred to as different things
>>>> throughout the description.
>>>>
>>>> "The Ignorable marker allows them." , "when Ignorable flag is set
>>>> to "true", "the Ignorable property does not impact", "..Ignorable
>>>> attribute"
>>>>
>>>>      I suggest we stick a consistent of way characterizing it.
>>>
>>>
>>> Agree, thanks for reminding me of this one.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Prasad
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: public-ws-policy-eds-request@w3.org [mailto:public-ws-policy-
>>>> eds-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Frederick Hirsch
>>>> Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2007 12:27 PM
>>>> To: public-ws-policy@w3.org
>>>> Cc: Hirsch Frederick; WS-Policy Editors W3C
>>>> Subject: Initial proposal for Issue 4041
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Attached is an initial draft proposal for issue 4041 [1], adding
>>>>
>>>> ignorable in the Primer. Note that this issue did not include adding
>>>>
>>>> material on ignorable to the Guidelines, which would be related.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This draft does not reflect the full consensus of the editors, since
>>>>
>>>> not every editor had a chance to review it. However we felt that it
>>>>
>>>> would be useful to provide to the committee in advance of the F2F to
>>>>
>>>> show the direction of this work. Additional changes may be needed.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> regards, Frederick
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Frederick Hirsch
>>>>
>>>> Nokia
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> [1] <http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=4041
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>> <ignorable-proposal-v3-FH-clean.pdf>
>> <ignorable-proposal-v3-FH-red-line.pdf>
> 
>