W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-addressing@w3.org > October 2005

RE: Minutes of the Palo Alto F2F

From: Yalcinalp, Umit <umit.yalcinalp@sap.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2005 16:16:51 -0700
Message-ID: <2BA6015847F82645A9BB31C7F9D6416547B567@uspale20.pal.sap.corp>
To: "Mark Nottingham" <mark.nottingham@bea.com>
Cc: <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of 
> Mark Nottingham
> Sent: Thursday, Oct 06, 2005 11:34 AM
> To: W3C WS Coordination Group
> Subject: Minutes of the Palo Alto F2F
> 
> ... are available for review at:
>    http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/addr/5/09/f2f-minutes.html
> 
> and attached for convenience.
> 
> 

I was about to send the resolution of cr4 to the WS-RX tc, but this
little nagging detail stopped me. 

I hate to observe that the minutes are not very comprehensible in many
places. For example, the issue that I raised is cr4. The discussion is
not clearly marked in the minutes ("mnot: Next is Umit's anon URI" will
be hard to remember 4 months from now on!). Same with other CR issues,
like the next one Glen raised. It is simply buried in the text since it
is not marked with a header. I think the minutes need some editing
before we can accept the minutes, like adding appropriate delimiters
with headers. 

I recall regarding the cr4 issue that I have raised from the ws-rx tc,
we had a clear writeup text that was obvious at the time (projected from
Mark's Mac during the f2f), but I do not really see the full text in the
minutes, but only two snippets of text to change 

Based on my recollection, this is what I thought we agreed on:  

Instead of the current text in SOAP binding spec in section 3.5 

{When "http://www.w3.org/@@@@/@@/addressing/anonymous" is specified as
the address of the ReplyTo or FaultTo EPR, the underlying SOAP protocol
binding provides a channel to the specified endpoint. Any underlying
protocol binding supporting the SOAP request-response message exchange
pattern provides such a channel. For instance, the SOAP 1.2 HTTP
binding[SOAP 1.2 Part 2: Adjuncts] puts the reply message in the HTTP
response.
}

We will have

{When "http://www.w3.org/@@@@/@@/addressing/anonymous" is specified as
the address of an EPR, such as the ReplyTo or FaultTo EPR, the
underlying SOAP protocol binding provides a channel to the specified
endpoint. Any underlying protocol binding supporting the SOAP
request-response message exchange pattern provides such a channel for
response messages. For instance, the SOAP 1.2 HTTP binding[SOAP 1.2 Part
2: Adjuncts] puts the reply message in the HTTP response.
}

Note that the only difference with what is recorded in the minutes (and
reflected to the CR resolution) and what I remember is the clause (",
such as ...") which appears editorial, but I thought I should bring this
up. In my opinion, my recollection provides clearer text, but I want to
check since I want to send it to the ws-rx tc. 

Mark, do you still have the full text on your Mac to finalize this? 

Thanks. 

--umit
Received on Thursday, 13 October 2005 23:16:53 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:35:09 GMT