- From: Steve Ross-Talbot <steve@pi4tech.com>
- Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2005 17:18:38 +0100
- To: "'WS-Choreography List'" <public-ws-chor@w3.org>, Nickolas Kavantzas <nickolas.kavantzas@oracle.com>
- Cc: Gary Brown <gary@pi4tech.com>
Hi Nick, Thanks (as ever) for you prompt response. I think that we have some mix up along the line and I think this has caused a degree of confusion or uncertainty around issue 1001. To be clear from our side the issue that was raised was related to correlating multiple channel instances within a choreography session - it was not about providing session identity. This may be an issue in and of itself but is not central to issue 1001. Issues relating to session identity we see as separate and if you wish to raise them yourself then that is fine too. The proposal addresses the issue that was raised (correlating multiple channel instances), and is important in achieving endpoint monitoring and end point generation. This is why we raised the issue in the first place. While we understand your points about sessions they are not required to resolve issue 1001. Rather than mix these issues up let us concentrate on issue 1001 and the proposal to resolve issue 1001. What we need from you in particular and the group are comment raised against this proposal, to enable us to either defend the proposal, or identify gaps that need to be addressed as they relate to issue 1001. Cheers Steve T > >> >> PROPOSAL: >> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-chor/2005Feb/0032.html >> >> We would ask the WG members to raise issues against this proposal by >> email rather than using a conf call. >> >> Best >> >> Steve T >> >> >> >> > > >
Received on Tuesday, 19 April 2005 16:18:45 UTC