- From: Monica J. Martin <Monica.Martin@Sun.COM>
- Date: Fri, 18 May 2007 08:42:59 -0700
- To: tom@coastin.com
- Cc: Ashok Malhotra <ashok.malhotra@oracle.com>, Christopher B Ferris <chrisfer@us.ibm.com>, "public-ws-policy@w3.org" <public-ws-policy@w3.org>
Tom Rutt wrote: > > 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 mm1: Tom, I believe Ashok was only providing an interpretation, taking actually Chris' proposed text, to achieve an understanding. There is a discussion going on whether or not Chris' text introduces directionality. Thanks. > > > > 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 >> >
Received on Friday, 18 May 2007 15:42:35 UTC