New Alternative F to resolve LC comment on WS addr metadata

During off line discussions during the ws-policy meeting, a group of 
people came up with
another alternative to resolve the LC comment on WS addr metadata.

The most significant concern about the existing nested support 
assertions is that there
is no way to indicate that a particular response mode is not supported.

This new alternative F takes the approach of nested support assertions, 
however
non presence of a nested policy assertion now implies that the 
associated response mode is not supported.

An empty Addressing assertion would imply that addressing is required, 
but that no response
modes associated with EPRs in a request message are supported.

It is important to notice that the use of negative language (incljuding 
the word "Negation" ) is never used in the definitions for Alternative F.

I deleted the example which places the two nested assertions in separate 
alternatives, since
such a policy expression is not useful for any endpoint.

I really like this new alternative, since it allows expression of all 
support claims an endpoint would  ever want to assert, and also allows 
for client "expressions" to allow use of intersection to find  
compatible endpoints.

Tom Rutt

I really like this new alternative.
of the new assertions.

-- 
----------------------------------------------------
Tom Rutt	email: tom@coastin.com; trutt@us.fujitsu.com
Tel: +1 732 801 5744          Fax: +1 732 774 5133