Re: Revised positions for closed/open world assumptions

Chris's way seems easier to implement, since all one needs to know is 
their own input to the intersection, and the output of intersection.

Ashok's directionality seems to imply I need to know what the other side 
put in to the intersection algorithm

Tom



Ashok Malhotra wrote:
>
> Chris, I don’t see the need for directionality. How about this:
>
> P and R exchange policies and decide on an alternative.
>
> P must do what’s mandated by the selected alternative.
>
> P cannot do what was in R’s policy but was not selected.
>
> R must do what’s mandated by the selected alternative.
>
> R cannot do what was in P’s policy but was not selected.
>
> No other claims.
>
> All the best, Ashok
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *From:* Christopher B Ferris [mailto:chrisfer@us.ibm.com]
> *Sent:* Friday, May 18, 2007 6:23 AM
> *To:* Ashok Malhotra
> *Cc:* public-ws-policy@w3.org
> *Subject:* RE: Revised positions for closed/open world assumptions
>
>
> Ashok,
>
> Maybe "initiating entity" is unclear. Basically, I intend it to be the 
> entity that engages an interaction
> by retrieving the other side's policy and intersecting it.
>
> If we expand this with a request/response MEP
>
> Requestor = R
> Provider = P
>
> If A is in R's policy, but not in P's policy R does not engage that 
> behavior.
> If A is in P's policy, but not in R's policy, P does not engage that 
> behavior
> If P does not use A's policy to engage the interaction, then 
> everything is out of scope.
> One would presume that P would deal with the behaviors represented in the
> messages received from R in a manner consistent with their specification.
>
> I recognize that the intersection algorithm is direction independent. 
> The proposed
> language does not affect intersection, it just places constraints on 
> the entity that
> uses the intersected policy to engage an interaction, limiting the set 
> of behaviors
> applied to those that are implied by assertions IN the intersected 
> policy and (possibly, but we
> don't say anything about them since they are out of scope) those which 
> are NOT IN
> the initiating entity's policy.
>
> Those behaviors that are IN the initiating entity's policy but NOT IN 
> the intersected policy
> are RIGHT OUT:-)
>
> Make sense?
>
> 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
>
> "Ashok Malhotra" <ashok.malhotra@oracle.com> wrote on 05/17/2007 
> 07:06:31 PM:
>
> > Chris:
> > In your latest note in this thread you proposed
> >
> > Proposed text added to section 4.5:
> >
> > If an initiating entity includes a policy assertion type A in
> > its policy, and this policy assertion type A
> > does not occur in an intersected policy, then the initiating
> > entity does not apply the behavior implied by
> > assertion type A.
> >
> > I have two concerns about this proposal:
> >
> > 1. It does not say anything about the policy of the responder. Is
> > the behavior different in the other direction? I think not.
> > 2. The policy intersection algorithm is direction independent. This
> > proposal introduces direction dependency and I’m wary of that. If
> > we go that way then I would like to bring up the complex of ideas
> > that say that the initiator expresses constraints – what you must
> > do, and the responder expresses capabilities – what I can do and
> > intersection works differently if viewed from the two directions.
> > If we go that route then this leads naturally into the wildcard
> > matching that DaveO and I have been proposing.
> >
> > All the best, Ashok
>

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

Received on Friday, 18 May 2007 14:38:21 UTC