3789 2006-10-03 21:34:49 +0000 Clarify usage of assertions with no behavioral requirements on the requester 2006-11-09 14:30:11 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified WS-Policy Framework PR PC Windows XP RESOLVED FIXED P2 normal --- 1 sergey.beryozkin sergey.beryozkin william.henry public-ws-policy-qa oldest_to_newest 12260 0 sergey.beryozkin 2006-10-03 21:34:49 +0000 Target : WS-Policy Framework and policy guidelines Justification : There's a class of policy assertions which have no behavioral requirements on the requester but can be still usefully processed by requesters which are aware of what assertions mean. For example : <oasis:Replicatable/> An assertion like this one can be a useful source of information for requesters. Providers having expected properties like <oasis:Replicatable/> can be chosen/searched. At the same time, given the fact assertions like <oasis:Replicatable/> have no behavioral requirements on the provider it's important to ensure policy-aware clients which have no knowledge of these assertions can proceed consuming the service advertsing this assertion. Currently the way to advertise such an assertion is to use a normal form with two policy alternatives(simple case), with only one alternative containing this assertion thus making it optional, or, in other words, giving a chance to requesters to ignore it. Such normal form expression is equivalent to a compact form with the optional assertion marked with wsp:optional attribute with a value 'true'. However, at the moment the primer recommends using wsp:optional when one needs to mark asssertions which identify optional capabilities/requirements with behavioral requirements on a requester should the requester wishes to use it. Thus marking assertions like <oasis:Replicatable/> with wsp:optional is considered to be a wrong approach. Proposal : Clarify the text describing the optionality in the policy guidelines and in the Framework spec on how a policy author should use assertions like <oasis:Replicatable/>. It's important that assertions like these can be usefully interpreted by knowledgeble requesters and safely ignored by requesters unaware of them. 12340 1 sergey.beryozkin 2006-10-06 10:24:19 +0000 This is the resolution I think would adequately address this issue : 1. Add an example to a primer and/or policy guidelines 2. Explain why policy authors should make such assertions optional for those requesters which are not aware of them. 3. Make any necessary changes to the wsp:optional related wording so that a policy author can use wsp:optional as a recognized but not a workaround way to mark such assertions. 12884 2 Paul.Cotton 2006-11-09 14:30:11 +0000 Resolved by Treasure Island amended proposal at the Nov F2F in the thread: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-policy/2006Nov/0072.html /paulc