- From: Tom Rutt <tom@coastin.com>
- Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2007 12:43:15 -0500
- To: Ashok Malhotra <ashok.malhotra@oracle.com>
- Cc: "public-ws-policy@w3.org" <public-ws-policy@w3.org>
Ashok Malhotra wrote: > Glen Daniels and I had a chat about 'ignorable'. > > It turns out, not surprisingly, that we had different usecases in mind > and different ideas as to how they should be handled. > > Here is a summary of our positions. Please respond if you have views on > them. > > Glen, please correct me if I have misrepresented your positions. > > - ASSERTIONS THAT THE OTHER PARTY SHOULD NEVER SEE > Such as logging. These are private to my implementation. > Glen: Such assertions should be removed prior to intersection and never exposed to the other party. > Ashok: They can be included in the policy and always 'ignore' d. > > - ASSERTIONS THAT CANNOT BE MATCHED BY MACHINE > A: I think these are useful to include in policies for advertising. > For example, legal or privacy policies. Users cannot match on these but will look at them and decide whether to use a particular service or not based on their contents. > These too must be always 'ignore' d during intersection. > G: Such assertions should not be included in policies but, rather, included in some other metadata bucket. > A: But we have not defined any other metadata buckets. > I really think the case above is adequately perhaps not perfectly) handeled by the strict matching with "ignorable". The receiver of policy makes the decision to go "strict". Otherwise, if we agree to cover the use case above (cannot be matched) with policy, we would need a new attribute type (Informational) to mark such a policy assertion. Tom > - ASSERTIONS THAT THE OTHER PARTY MAY BE ABLE TO MATCH > G: If he can match the assertions, great! If not, he should be able to proceed even if he cannot match. This is the rationale for lax and strict matching. > A: I accept this usecase but that's not what I was thinking of. > > All the best, Ashok > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: public-ws-policy-request@w3.org [mailto:public-ws-policy- >> request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Ashok Malhotra >> Sent: Tuesday, January 02, 2007 6:37 AM >> To: public-ws-policy@w3.org >> Subject: NEW ISSUE 4130: Ignorable assertions must be ignored >> >> >> >> >> 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. >> >> >> >> >> > > > -- ---------------------------------------------------- Tom Rutt email: tom@coastin.com; trutt@us.fujitsu.com Tel: +1 732 801 5744 Fax: +1 732 774 5133
Received on Monday, 8 January 2007 17:43:41 UTC