RE: Revised positions for closed/open world assumptions

Under what cases will P know what is in R's policy?  All messages that
have ReplyTo!=Anon?  
 
Do you see that the roles will reverse for any and each response
message, that is P will become an R, and R will become a P?  
 
If so, that means the notion of initiator is at the protocol message
level, that is the node that starts a discrete protocol message.
 
Cheers,
Dave


________________________________

	From: Christopher B Ferris [mailto:chrisfer@us.ibm.com] 
	Sent: Friday, May 18, 2007 12:29 PM
	To: David Orchard
	Cc: Ashok Malhotra; public-ws-policy@w3.org;
public-ws-policy-request@w3.org
	Subject: RE: Revised positions for closed/open world assumptions
	
	

	Not necessarily. In an asynchronous exchange, P might well
engage an interaction with the ReplyTo endpoint. 
	
	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 02:31:23 PM:
	
	> How does P know what is in R's policy?  It isn't doing the 
	> intersection.  It just get the bits on the wire based upon
what R 
	> decides to do. 
	>   
	> Cheers, 
	> Dave 
	> 
	> 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 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