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

Re: Minutes of the Palo Alto F2F

From: Mark Nottingham <mark.nottingham@bea.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2005 19:54:59 -0700
Message-Id: <6E1E6F3D-206F-4A13-A63E-71E7D6373CC7@bea.com>
Cc: <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>
To: "Yalcinalp, Umit" <umit.yalcinalp@sap.com>

I e-mailed all of the resolutions that I had text for to the list, so  
if it's not there, we don't have it unfortunately.

I'll endeavour to add headers in the appropriate places. On Monday,  
we can ask if there's any objection to changing the minutes to  
reflect the text below.

Regards,


On 13/10/2005, at 4:16 PM, Yalcinalp, Umit wrote:


>
>
>
>
>> -----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
>
>
>


--
Mark Nottingham   Principal Technologist
Office of the CTO   BEA Systems
Received on Friday, 14 October 2005 02:55:15 GMT

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