- From: Prasad Yendluri <prasad.yendluri@webmethods.com>
- Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 19:02:26 -0500
- To: Frederick Hirsch <frederick.hirsch@nokia.com>, public-ws-policy@w3.org
- Cc: WS-Policy Editors W3C <public-ws-policy-eds@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <BDD4EF3331E8FB4EA19B677CDAD6302093A1A6@ca-exbe1.webm.webmethods.com>
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 :-) 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. 3. 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." 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. 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> _____
Received on Thursday, 11 January 2007 13:19:55 UTC