Title: [Guidelines] Section 2 should account for impact of assertions that do not manifest on the wire, or only apply to one party but may still impact the ability to interoperate, depending on whether they may be ignored.
 
Description: Section 2 in the Guidelines document currently states [1]:
 
In second paragraph in the second bullet (Is the behavior visible?):

"If an assertion describes a behavior that does not manifest on the wire then the assertion is not relevant to an interoperable interaction. An example is an assertion that describes the privacy notice information of a provider and the associated regulatory safeguard in place on the provider's side. Such assertions may represent business or regulatory level metadata but do not add any value to interoperability."

However, such assertions are relevant since a provider may not wish to interoperate unless assertions are agreed to by the client, or may allow them to be ignored with the ignorable property. Likewise, a client may not wish to interoperate unless certain provider assertions are true, regardless of wire impact.

In first paragraph in the third bullet (Does the behavior apply to two or more Web service participants?): 
"A shared behavior refers to a requirement that is relevant to an interoperable Web service interaction and involves two or more participants. If an assertion only describes one participant's behavior (non-shared behavior) then the assertion is not relevant to an interoperable interaction. Non-shared behaviors do not add any value for tooling or interoperability. An example of a non-shared behavior is the use of logging or auditing by the provider. Requesters may use the policy intersection to select a compatible policy alternative for a Web service interaction. If an assertion only describes one participant's behavior then this assertion will not be present in the other participant's policy and the policy intersection will unnecessarily produce false negatives."

The same argument applies. 

 
Justification: The current text  does not account for ignorable and non-ignorable assertions or the fact that interoperability may require more than common wire format.
 
Target: Guidelines for Policy Assertion Authors
 
Proposal: Change text in section 2 as follows:

Proposed revision to second paragraph in the second bullet (Is the behavior visible?):

"If an assertion describes a behavior that does not manifest on the wire then the assertion will not impact the interoperability of wire messages, but may still be relevant to enabling an interoperable interaction. For example, a provider may not wish to interoperate unless a client can accept an assertion describing provider behavior. An example is an assertion that describes the privacy notice information of a provider and the associated regulatory safeguard in place on the provider's side. For cases where the provider does not intend the assertion to impact interoperability it may mark it as "ignorable". "

Proposed revision to first paragraph in the third bullet (Does the behavior apply to two or more Web service participants?): 

"A shared behavior refers to a requirement that is relevant to an interoperable Web service interaction and involves two or more participants. If an assertion only describes one participant's wire behavior the assertion may still be relevant to an interoperable interaction.  An example is the use of logging or auditing by the provider. If an assertion only describes one participant's behavior then this assertion may be marked as ignorable to avoid use in a lax intersection algorithm (indicating it does not impact interoperability) or if not ignorable then it is deemed important for agreement between both parties."


[1] <http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2006/ws/policy/ws-policy-guidelines.html?rev=1.11>