Re: [ws-rx] Proposal for AI 40 and i024

[Anish Karmarkar <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com>]

Here is my reason for agreeing to the resolution at the F2F:

There are two kinds of policies: policies that affect the messages on 
the wire and policies that do not (or "observed"). "observed" policies 
would be ones like privacy policy of a Web site or auditing. These kind 
of policies are informational to the client of the service and the 
messages on the wire do not get affected by it. Non-observed policies 
are policies that affect the messages. For example, encryption etc.

My sense of the F2F resolution was that the TC wanted to capture the 
fact that DAs, timeouts etc were "observed" and an AI was generated to 
capture this (the wsp:Observed in the old ws-policy doc does not define 
this well).

 From that perspective, "in effect" doesn't quite capture our intention. 
"observed" is tainted because of historical baggage. How about just 
stating that the RM assertion parameters do not affect the messages on 
the wire?

Comments?

-Anish
--


Marc Goodner wrote:
> I realize that, the resolution to i024 was to close the issue and 
> clarify the meaning of the term “observed”. The word “observed” was not 
> added to the spec by i024, it was already there. My proposal drops the 
> ambiguous term and adds text that does not need any clarification.
> 
>  
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> *From:* Ashok Malhotra [mailto:ashok.malhotra@oracle.com]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, October 18, 2005 12:50 PM
> *To:* Marc Goodner; ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
> *Subject:* RE: [ws-rx] Proposal for AI 40 and i024
> 
>  
> 
> The word 'observed' alone would not have satisfied the issue.
> 
> That's why the WG wanted words to clarify the semantics.
> 
> All the best, Ashok
> 
>  
> 
>      
> 
>     ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
>     *From:* Marc Goodner [mailto:mgoodner@microsoft.com]
>     *Sent:* Tuesday, October 18, 2005 12:40 PM
>     *To:* ashok.malhotra@oracle.com; ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
>     *Subject:* RE: [ws-rx] Proposal for AI 40 and i024
> 
>     I don’t understand why defining the term “observed” would have
>     satisfied this issue and the change below does not. I see no
>     ambiguity in the words I have proposed.
> 
>      
> 
>     What is ambiguous about “in effect”? Is not the intention of the
>     definition of the DA here to expose what DA is in effect between the
>     RMD and AD where this would be used? I can see some ambiguity about
>     “observed” in this context as it is a word that can have
>     unintentional interpretations among WS-Policy experts. Particularly
>     for those who have differing recollections of the meaning of
>     wsp:Observed before it was removed from WS-Policy. I don’t believe
>     the word “observed” was used here to cause such interpretation and I
>     thought that was why clarification was needed.
> 
>      
> 
>     I would have expected the clarification of “observed” to say
>     something about the DA being “in effect” between the RM and app
>     layer. Removing the offending word seems a cleaner approach than
>     attempting to define it.
> 
>      
> 
>     If the below change is acceptable to the TC I see no reason to
>     reopen the issue.
> 
>      
> 
>     ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
>     *From:* Ashok Malhotra [mailto:ashok.malhotra@oracle.com]
>     *Sent:* Tuesday, October 18, 2005 12:15 PM
>     *To:* Marc Goodner; ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
>     *Subject:* RE: [ws-rx] Proposal for AI 40 and i024
> 
>      
> 
>     So, the proposal is to change the undefined word "observed" with
>     alternate undefined
> 
>     words "in effect".  I'm sorry, but I disagree. 
> 
>      
> 
>     I would like to ask the chairs to reopen the discussion to determine
>     what the WG really
> 
>     wants.
> 
>     All the best, Ashok
> 
>      
> 
>          
> 
>         ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
>         *From:* Marc Goodner [mailto:mgoodner@microsoft.com]
>         *Sent:* Tuesday, October 18, 2005 9:42 AM
>         *To:* ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
>         *Subject:* [ws-rx] Proposal for AI 40 and i024
> 
>         I propose the following to close the open AI 40 for i024,
>         clarifying the meaning of observed.
> 
>          
> 
>         Change the word “observed” on lines 233 and 245 to “in effect”.
> 
>         Change the words “observed by” on lines 233 and 245 to “in
>         effect at”.
> 
>          
> 
>         This would result in the following text in the RM Policy doc.
> 
>          
> 
>         The Delivery Assurance indicates a delivery assurance claim *in
>         effect* between an Application
>         Source and an RM Source or an Application Destination and an RM
>         Destination.
>          
>         /wsrmp:DeliveryAssertion
>         An assertion that makes a claim as to the delivery assurance
>         policy *in effect* *at* the
>         destination endpoint.
> 
>          
> 
>         I believe that this retains the intention of the current text.
> 
>          
> 
>         1 AI 40
>         http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ws-rx/members/action_item.php?action_item_id=1048
> 
> 
>         2 i024
>         http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ws-rx/download.php/14894/ReliableMessagingIssues.xml#i024
> 
> 
>          
>