- From: Christopher B Ferris <chrisfer@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 09:04:05 -0400
- To: "Sergey Beryozkin" <sergey.beryozkin@iona.com>
- Cc: public-ws-policy@w3.org, public-ws-policy-request@w3.org
- Message-ID: <OF743C90B9.C0EF1594-ON852572E5.0047006D-852572E5.0047ABEF@us.ibm.com>
Sergey, Please see my comments below. 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 05/23/2007 03:44:59 PM: > Hello > > I?d like to ask few questions (I?m assuming the requestor initiates > the intersection) : > > 1. why Lax intersection mode produces duplicates for A & B ? Take a look at the example in sect 4.5 http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/CR-ws-policy-20070330/#Policy_Intersection > 2. why the provider?s F is in the effective policy produced by the > lax intersection mode ? My understanding of the lax mode is that it accepts > an ignorable provider?s assertion only if it understands it, and in > this case it does not, so it tshould be dropped The intersection does not change aside from the determination of compatibility of assertions. The statement that follows makes it clear that if the two alternatives are compatible, the result of intersection is still: "an alternative containing all of the assertions in both alternatives." > 3.Why D is in the effective policy produced by the lax intersection > mode ? Provider does not know anything about D so the effect of > requester putting D in the effective policy can be undefined - See above, it is ignorable. > 4. Given 3 should the intersection fail ? Nope. > > Thanks, Sergey > > > > From: public-ws-policy-request@w3.org [mailto:public-ws-policy- > request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Christopher B Ferris > Sent: 23 May 2007 17:14 > To: public-ws-policy@w3.org > Subject: from the whiteboard f2f dicussion > > > Provider Policy: > <Policy> > <A/> > <B/> > <C wsp:Optional="true"/> > <D wsp:Ignorable="true"/> > </Policy> > > Requestor Policy: > <Policy> > <A/> > <B/> > <E wsp:Optional="true"/> > <F wsp:Ignorable="true"/> > </Policy> > > Lax intersection yields: > <Policy> > <A/> > <B/> > <A/> > <B/> > <D wsp:Ignorable="true"/> > <F wsp:Ignorable="true"/> > </Policy> > > There is a policy <Z/> that the Provider knows about, and a policy <Y/> > that the Requester knows about. It does not matter whether these are > optional or ignorable. > > Style \ WILL | MUST NOT | MAY | WILL NOT > AIN Vocabulary A, B, D, F E Y, Z C > AIN Closed A, B, D, F E, Y, Z C > AIN Client Vocab A, B, D, F E, Y Z C > Open World A, B, D, F C, E, Y, Z > > > Out of Scope > Requestor as entity that engages an interaction > AIN Client Vocab A, B, F E Z, Y, C, D > Provider as recipient > > > Provider as entity that engages an interaction > AIN Client Vocab A, B, D C Z, Y, E, F > Requestor as recipient > > > 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
Received on Thursday, 24 May 2007 13:04:24 UTC