RE: NEW ISSUE 4130: Ignorable assertions must be ignored

Generator Microsoft Word 11 (filtered medium) Hi Sergey:
The problems with having two modes, strict and lax, is that the client and server could use different modes and, thus, come up with different policy alternatives. And it complicates life. So why don' t we go with the original proposal to have a single intersection mode that ignores ignorable?

All the best, Ashok 
From: Sergey Beryozkin [mailto:sergey.beryozkin@iona.com]  Sent: Tuesday, January 02, 2007 8:06 AM To: Ashok Malhotra; public-ws-policy@w3.org Subject: Re: NEW ISSUE 4130: Ignorable assertions must be ignored

Hi

I'm finding this intriguing...So you suggest to have wsp:ignorable assertions be completely ignored at the intersection engine. 

This will mean then that the only way for those providers who wish to advertize assertions such that aware requesters can use them and unaware requesters can ignore them is to use wsp:optional. 

This is actually what we proposed originally but the group decided on the introdution of wsp:ignorable instead (and useful strict and lax intersection modes)and keep the semantics associated with wsp:optional intact. 

As fars as I understand you can achive theignorability you're looking for by using a lax intersection mode on the requester's side and do not specify an assertion marked by a provider as ignorable in the list of requester's requirements.
Cheers, 
Sergey Beryozkin
Title Ignorable assertion must be ignored Description At the last f2f meeting the WS-Policy WG agreed to add an attribute called 'ignorable' to the WS-Policy assertion syntax. We think this is a step in the right direction. The WG, however, blunted the effect of this change by allowing the ignorable attribute to be ignored during policy intersection by allowing two intersection modes one of which honors the ignorable attribute and the other which ignores it. We argue this creates a problem as the parties attempting to agree on a policy alternative may use different forms of the intersection algorithm and come up with different solutions. A standard that allows such variation is not very useful. We suggest that the policy intersection algorithm be changed so that assertions marked ignorable are always ignored. Justification See above. Target WS-Policy Framework Proposal  1. In section 4.5 Policy Intersection, add a third bullet after the first two bullets that says: o Assertions with ignorable = 'true' are ignored in during policy intersection. 2. Remove the first bullet, including its sub-bullets from the second set of 2 bullets. 3. Add an ignorable assertion to the following example.