[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [ws-rx] Proposal for AI 40 and i024
And you moved to close it with the action to clarify the meaning of "observed". I fail to believe it was the intent of the TC to close an issue with an AI for anything more than an editorial text change such as my proposal below. -----Original Message----- From: Ashok Malhotra [mailto:ashok.malhotra@oracle.com] Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2005 11:43 AM To: Marc Goodner; Anish Karmarkar Cc: ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: RE: [ws-rx] Proposal for AI 40 and i024 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 > > > > > > > > > > >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]