RE: Initial proposal for Issue 4041

We have reviewed this latest proposal and it looks good.  Our proposed edits are attached.  They are largely editorial.

Thanks.

Daniel Roth

-----Original Message-----
From: public-ws-policy-request@w3.org [mailto:public-ws-policy-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Frederick Hirsch
Sent: Monday, January 15, 2007 8:31 PM
To: Hirsch Frederick; public-ws-policy@w3.org
Cc: ext Prasad Yendluri; Asir Vedamuthu
Subject: Re: Initial proposal for Issue 4041

Attached is Word version as well.

regards, Frederick

Frederick Hirsch
Nokia


On Jan 15, 2007, at 10:26 AM, Frederick Hirsch wrote:

> 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
>>>
>>>
>>
>
> <ignorable-proposal-v3-FH-clean.pdf>
> <ignorable-proposal-v3-FH-red-line.pdf>