Eric - I'm unable to identify any portion of this new draft that addresses any of the previous concerns I've raised. Unfortunately it appears that the uri-review archives are broken, as this message of yours is the only one present, so I can't easily point you at them. But from my email archives, this was the discussion we had between Feb 15 and Mar 3 of this year concerning the meaning of "operations" and of what a jms URI actually identifies. Mark. On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 6:35 PM, Eric Johnson <eric@tibco.com> wrote: > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-merrick-jms-uri-04.txt > > Changes to this draft are discussed here: > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-soap-jms/2008Sep/0046.html > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-soap-jms/2008Oct/0018.html > > Please advise with any feedback you might have. > > Thanks! > > -Eric. > _______________________________________________ > Uri-review mailing list > Uri-review@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uri-review >Received on Wednesday, 29 October 2008 14:00:02 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:17:20 UTC