Re: Initial proposal for Issue 4041

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
>>
>>
>