RE: NEW ISSUE 4339 [Primer] : Update references to interoperability in Ignorable Policy Expressions section

Reading this thread, it is not clear to me what is your proposal to resolve issue 4339. Can you summarize?

Regards,

Asir S Vedamuthu
Microsoft Corporation



-----Original Message-----
From: public-ws-policy-request@w3.org [mailto:public-ws-policy-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Sergey Beryozkin
Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2007 11:26 AM
To: Fabian Ritzmann
Cc: Sverdlov, Yakov; Christopher B Ferris; public-ws-policy@w3.org
Subject: Re: NEW ISSUE [Primer] : Update references to interoperability in Ignorable Policy Expressions section


Hi Fabian

Thanks for that clarification. I misunderstood you referring to the fact that it was not necessarily the actual client doing the
intersection hence my reply was a bit too resolute :-)
I reckon what you mentioned is a useful piece of info which in itself go to the primer to some short section describing various ways
on how a client can get to the effective policy which needs to be used during the communication...

Cheers, Sergey


Sergey Beryozkin wrote:
> Ok. I got what Chris was referring to. Thanks. But it's immaterial who consumes the policy first, the actual client who start
> wiring that info into the client runtime or the broker acting on the client behalf or some other entity to the point of this
> issue. All of them are consumers in a sense that they do the intersection.
> The point of this issue is that the provider needs to be aware that marking the assertion as wsp:ignorable does not guarantee it
> will be ignored for intersection purposes in all the intersection scenarious...The section actually says that but I just suggest
> to make that message a bit more stronger...
> I thought there was a common agreement on adding a statement like this before, has anything changed ?

I'm fine with adding that statement. My only objection was to using
terms that are undefined and ill understood.

Fabian


>     ----- Original Message -----
>     *From:* Sverdlov, Yakov <mailto:Yakov.Sverdlov@ca.com>
>     *To:* Christopher B Ferris <mailto:chrisfer@us.ibm.com> ; Sergey
>     Beryozkin <mailto:sergey.beryozkin@iona.com>
>     *Cc:* Fabian Ritzmann <mailto:Fabian.Ritzmann@Sun.COM> ;
>     public-ws-policy@w3.org <mailto:public-ws-policy@w3.org> ;
>     public-ws-policy-request@w3.org
>     <mailto:public-ws-policy-request@w3.org>
>     *Sent:* Wednesday, February 21, 2007 4:26 PM
>     *Subject:* RE: NEW ISSUE [Primer] : Update references to
>     interoperability in Ignorable Policy Expressions section
>
>     +1 to Chris.
>
>     Policy intersection (and enforcement) will be externalized in many
>     cases - by PEP, for example.
>
>     Regards,
>
>     Yakov Sverdlov
>
>     CA
>
>     * From: * public-ws-policy-request@w3.org
>     <mailto:public-ws-policy-request@w3.org>
>     [mailto:public-ws-policy-request@w3.org] *On Behalf Of
>     *Christopher B Ferris
>     *Sent:* Wednesday, February 21, 2007 11:20 AM
>     *To:* Sergey Beryozkin
>     *Cc:* Fabian Ritzmann; public-ws-policy@w3.org
>     <mailto:public-ws-policy@w3.org>; public-ws-policy-request@w3.org
>     <mailto:public-ws-policy-request@w3.org>
>     *Subject:* Re: NEW ISSUE [Primer] : Update references to
>     interoperability in Ignorable Policy Expressions section
>
>
>     I didn't say provider. I said not client. There is a distinction.
>
>     Cheers,
>
>     Christopher Ferris
>     STSM, Software Group Standards Strategy
>     email: chrisfer@us.ibm.com <mailto:chrisfer@us.ibm.com>
>     blog: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/page/chrisferris
>     phone: +1 508 377 9295
>
>     public-ws-policy-request@w3.org wrote on 02/21/2007 10:43:07 AM:
>
>     > Why would a provider may want to compute the intersection ?
>     >
>     > Thanks, Sergey
>     >
>     > ----- Original Message -----
>     > From: Christopher B Ferris
>     > To: Fabian Ritzmann
>     > Cc: public-ws-policy@w3.org ; public-ws-policy-request@w3.org ;
>     > Sergey Beryozkin
>     > Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2007 3:37 PM
>     > Subject: Re: NEW ISSUE [Primer] : Update references to
>     > interoperability in Ignorable Policy Expressions section
>     >
>     >
>     > One could argue that a policy consumer is one who consumes policy,
>     > for whatever purpose.
>     > I certainly agree that the agency that computes intersection need
>     > not necessarily be a
>     > web service consumer (client).
>     >
>     > Cheers,
>     >
>     > Christopher Ferris
>     > STSM, Software Group Standards Strategy
>     > email: chrisfer@us.ibm.com
>     > blog: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/page/chrisferris
>     > phone: +1 508 377 9295
>     >
>     > public-ws-policy-request@w3.org wrote on 02/21/2007 08:25:22 AM:
>     >
>     > >
>     > > Sergey Beryozkin wrote:
>     > > > Target : WS-Policy Primer, Section 2.7
>     > > >
>     > > > Proposal : Update the last sentence : "Please note that the
>     > > ignorableness is at
>     > > > the discretion of policy consumers therefore ignorable
>     assertions
>     > > may have an
>     > > > impact on determining compatibility of policies"
>     > > >
>     > >
>     > > Ignorable is a property whose relevance is at the discretion of
>     the
>     > > entity that computes the intersection. That may or may not be a
>     policy
>     > > consumer.
>     > >
>     > > Fabian
>     > >
>     > >
>

Received on Wednesday, 7 March 2007 02:42:24 UTC