Re: Ignorable assertions and interoperability

Sergey, how is this ostensible interoperability problem any different 
from the situation we had before the introduction of Ignorable, i.e. 
where we had nothing but a strict intersection algorithm?

Fabian


Christopher B Ferris wrote:
>
> I see now what you mean. However, IMO, this isn't an interoperability 
> issue, as much as one of
> understanding the reality that despite the fact that a policy provider 
> might mark something as
> ignorable, there will always be some policy consumers that will ignore 
> that advice:-)
>
> I guess it is a matter of expectation setting.
>
> 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
>
> "Sergey Beryozkin" <sergey.beryozkin@iona.com> wrote on 02/21/2007 
> 08:01:13 AM:
>
> > Hi Chris
> >  
> > "I guess I don't understand why strict mode presents interoperability
> > challenges. We have both strict and lax mode intersection for a reason.
> > Those policy consumers that don't want to ignore assertions that are
> > marked as ignorable can use strict to achieve that objective. Those 
> that
> > are okay with ignoring what is marked ignorable can use lax mode. The
> > policy consumer has the choice to do whatever they feel is right for
> > their circumstances. "
> >  
> > I agree. From the consumer's perspective we have no issues at all.
> > The things are slightly different from the provider's perspective 
> though.
> > Provider marks the assertion as wsp:ignorable=true so that it can be
> > ignored for the intersection purposes. Otherwise why else would the
> > provider do it ? If the provider wants the assertion be understood
> > always then it would just expose that assertion as the normal
> > required assertion.
> > But the provider does not aware of what mode consumers will be
> > using. By marking the assertion as ignorable the provider can get
> > some consumers fail to consume the service if they work in the
> > strict mode. Yes, that's what consumers chose to but I think it's
> > not something a provider will really want... So it's a possible
> > interop concern at the WS-Policy level
> >  
> > Do you see what I mean ? Would you agree ?
> >  
> > Cheers, Sergey
> >  
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Christopher B Ferris
> > To: Sergey Beryozkin
> > Cc: public-ws-policy@w3.org ; public-ws-policy-request@w3.org
> > Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2007 12:32 PM
> > Subject: Re: Ignorable assertions and interoperability
> >
> >
> > Sergey,
> >
> > Thanks for elaborating.
> >
> > Please see my inlined comments below.
> >
> > 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 02/21/2007 04:36:19 AM:
> >
> > > Hi Chris
> > >  
> > > Thanks for your comments.
> > >  
> > > I agree, I should've created a bug with a specific proposal rather
> > > just suggesting (the editors :-)) to do some revisioning of the
> > primer's text.
> > >  
> > > One goal of this email was to explain why I was concerned about the
> > > interoperability statement during the concall as I promised at the
> > > time to reply in email...
> > > As far as wsp:ignorable and WS-Policy interoperability were
> > > concerned, one possible take on it can be that using wsp:ignorable
> > > might cause at the moment at least WS-Policy-level interoperability
> > > problems due to third-party consumers using a strict mode. This is
> > > one interop concern.
> >
> > I guess I don't understand why strict mode presents interoperability
> > challenges. We have both strict and lax mode intersection for a reason.
> > Those policy consumers that don't want to ignore assertions that are
> > marked as ignorable can use strict to achieve that objective. Those 
> that
> > are okay with ignoring what is marked ignorable can use lax mode. The
> > policy consumer has the choice to do whatever they feel is right for
> > their circumstances.
> >
> > > As far as a provider is concerned, I believe a provider's motivation
> > > to mark the assertion as wsp:ignorable is to try to reach with the
> > > (assertion) message to as many requesters as possible and yet
> > > continue to interoperate at the ws-policy level with ideally every
> >
> > Agreed.
> >
> > > requester out there. Thats's another possible view on what wsp:
> > > ignorable means to the provider as far as a ws-level interop is 
> concerned.
> > > Then there's on the wire interoperability which is what was referred
> > > to during the call.
> >
> > I still don't understand the interop concern.
> >
> > >  
> > > Hopefully this explains the reason behind the message I've sent.
> > >  
> > > I've reviewed the primer and the guidelines yesterday and I've seen
> > > just a few references to the interoperability term. As far as wsp:
> > > ignorable and interop are concerned, section 2.7 adequately refers
> > > to both on the wire interop and the ws-policy level interop
> > > (implicitly by advising to be aware of the impact of this attribute
> > > on the compatibility of policies).
> > > I'll add a bug with a proposal to add a minor update to that section
> > > (with respect to referring to interop). Specifically, I'll propose
> > > to add a text sent by yourself earlier on the ignorability being at
> > > the discretion of the requester.
> > >  
> > > Cheers, Sergey
> > >  
> > >  
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: Christopher B Ferris
> > > To: Sergey Beryozkin
> > > Cc: public-ws-policy@w3.org ; public-ws-policy-request@w3.org
> > > Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2007 12:52 PM
> > > Subject: Re: Ignorable assertions and interoperability
> > >
> > >
> > > Sergey,
> > >
> > > Would you please log this as a bug against the primer and guidelines
> > > so that it can be tracked?
> > >
> > > Also, it would help to have specific areas of the primer and
> > > guidelines that mention interoperability
> > > so that we can focus on what exactly needs to be changed.
> > >
> > > Finally, if you could provide a proposal to address your concerns,
> > > that would help greatly towards
> > > closing the issue.
> > >
> > > 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 02/20/2007 05:52:22 AM:
> > >
> > > > Hi
> > > >  
> > > > During the latest concall it was recommended to advise not to use
> > > > ignorable assertions if the interoperability would be affected...I
> > > > thought it was a strong statement at a time.
> > > > The reason for that was that I was assuming at a time a WS-Policy
> > > > level interoperability was referred to.
> > > > Most of the time it's obvious what interoperability the spec/primer
> > > > texts refer to, but I feel it would be useful to revisit (in the
> > > > primer and guidelines) all references to the 'interoperability'
> > > > terms and qualify them as appropriate...
> > > >  
> > > > Cheers, Sergey Beryozkin

Received on Wednesday, 21 February 2007 13:33:03 UTC