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

[Ashok Malhotra <ashok.malhotra@oracle.com>]

Marc, you said...

> If you still feel there is a need to state 
> something about the DA not impacting the wire open a new 
> issue and propose specific text.

But that was what the issue was about in the first place.

All the best, Ashok
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Marc Goodner [mailto:mgoodner@microsoft.com] 
> Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2005 11:16 AM
> To: Anish Karmarkar
> Cc: ashok.malhotra@oracle.com; ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: RE: [ws-rx] Proposal for AI 40 and i024
> 
> How about we remove the tainted word "observed" per my 
> proposal. If you still feel there is a need to state 
> something about the DA not impacting the wire open a new 
> issue and propose specific text.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Anish Karmarkar [mailto:Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com]
> Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2005 11:08 AM
> To: Marc Goodner
> Cc: ashok.malhotra@oracle.com; ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: Re: [ws-rx] Proposal for AI 40 and i024
> 
> 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/act
> ion_item.p
> hp?action_item_id=1048
> > 
> > 
> >         2 i024
> >
> http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ws-rx/download.ph
> p/14894/Re
> liableMessagingIssues.xml#i024
> > 
> > 
> >          
> > 
> 
> 
>