Re: [Uri-review] New version of JMS URI posted.

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
>