Re: Treatment of optional/ignorable attributes in framework and primer

Sergey,

We discussed this briefly on today's call. I just wanted to confirm with 
you that you do NOT have intent on this
becoming an issue with the Framework specification.

Cheers,

Christopher Ferris
STSM, Software Group Standards Strategy
email: chrisfer@us.ibm.com
blog: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/page/chrisferris
phone: +1 508 234 2986

public-ws-policy-request@w3.org wrote on 06/13/2007 01:44:17 PM:

> Hi
> 
> I wanted to start some discussion on what I feel some 
> ambiguity/assymetry in the way optional and ignorable attributes are
> covered in the framework and the primer. I don't want to open a bug 
> and open a can of worms :-) but just to see if at least there's some
> agreement on what I'm going to say. If yes then perhaps some 
> primer/framework text can be updated in this version of the spec or 
> in the v.next
> 
> Framework : wsp:optional is just a syntactic shortcut, indicates the
> assertion will be present in one alternative and not in the other one
> Primer :       wsp:optional expresses the capability/behaviour the 
> client may optionally engage
> 
> When a provider uses wsp:optional assertions the primer's 
> description is more applicable, the policy author thinks how the 
> service can be accessed by the clients and uses wsp:optional 
> assertions when appropriate. The framework description has a 
> secondary role when a policy author creates a policy on the provider's 
side.
> When a requester uses wsp:optional assertions only the framework 
> description applies, the primer's decription does not seem to have 
> any sense on the requester's side.
> 
> Framework : wsp:ignorable indicated this assertion is ignorable for 
> the intersection purposes
> Primer : "The wsp:Ignorable attribute allows providers to clearly 
> indicate which policy assertions indicate behaviors that don?t 
> manifest on the wire and may not be of concern to a requester when 
> determining policy compatibility. Using the wsp: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. "
> 
> Similar to the way I described providers and requesters deal with 
> wsp:optional...
> 
> Any comments ?
> 
> 
> Thanks, Sergey
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------
> IONA Technologies PLC (registered in Ireland)
> Registered Number: 171387
> Registered Address: The IONA Building, Shelbourne Road, Dublin 4, 
Ireland