(no subject)

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
1 message Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

(no subject)

David Hull
(Forwarded from discussion list)


From the discussion of LC136, it appears that there may be cause in the future to extend our policy assertions, and that this could plausible happen in more than one way.  Section 4.5 of WSP states that "Because the set of behaviors indicated by a policy alternative depends on the domain-specific semantics of the collected assertions, determining whether two policy alternatives are compatible generally involves domain-specific processing."

In particular, this means that if an alternative contains any of our assertions, those assertions may participate in domain-specific processing.

Do we need to make any statement concerning such participation?

For example, we could state (though I doubt it would be wise) that our assertions are only compatible with themselves and that any other assertions appearing in an alternative with them MUST NOT be considered compatible with them for intersection purposes.

This would prohibit, say, <All><wsam:Addressing><wsme:MyAssertion></All> from being compatible with <All><wsam:Addressing></All>.

I think the best approach is to explicitly leave the door open for anything, along the lines of:
Other specifications may define additional assertions to be used in alternatives along with those defined here, or in policies nested within the assertions defined here.  This specification places no constraints on the domain-specific processing of such assertions or on the compatibility, or lack thereof, of such assertions with those defined here.
As this explicitly makes the least constraining statement possible, I do not believe it would cause a breaking change.