RE: Revised positions for closed/open world assumptions

To be SUPER clear, Chris didn't propose any changes to policy intersection. He simply proposed a sentence [1] to answer the 2 or 3 questions that Ashok posted on the mail archive.

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2007May/0181.html

Regards,

Asir S Vedamuthu
Microsoft Corporation


From: public-ws-policy-request@w3.org [mailto:public-ws-policy-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Christopher B Ferris
Sent: Friday, May 18, 2007 8:55 AM
To: Monica J. Martin
Cc: Ashok Malhotra; public-ws-policy@w3.org; public-ws-policy-request@w3.org; tom@coastin.com
Subject: Re: Revised positions for closed/open world assumptions


To be clear, I am not introducing directionality in the actual intersection algorithm. Only with regards to
engaging an interaction BASED upon the results of intersection.  There is an important distinction.

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 05/18/2007 11:42:59 AM:

>
> 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
> >>
> >
>
>
>