Re: Wednesday MEP call?

That seems to leave me, Umit, and possibly Philippe as regular
attendees.  Sentiment in favor of meeting?  Opposed?

Amy!
On Tue, 15 Jul 2003 15:49:38 -0700
"Jonathan Marsh" <jmarsh@microsoft.com> wrote:

> 
> I'm afraid I'll have to bag out too, with the XSL WG FTF ongoing...
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: public-ws-desc-meps-request@w3.org
> > [mailto:public-ws-desc-meps- request@w3.org] On Behalf Of David
> > Booth Sent: Monday, July 14, 2003 2:46 PM
> > To: public-ws-desc-meps@w3.org
> > Subject: Wednesday MEP call?
> > 
> > 
> > I will be on an airplane at the time of our scheduled MEP
> teleconference
> > Wednesday July 16, so I will not be able to make the call.
> > 
> > However, if others are able to meet, please go ahead.  We have
> > limited time
> > remaining before our F2F meeting, so we need to make progress as we
> can.
> > 
> > I made note of the following remaining issues.  Are there others?
> > 
> > 
> > Remaining Issues in MEP TF
> > ==========================
> > 
> > 1. Address remaining questions on the p2 family (p2e versus p2c).
> Should
> > we adopt p2c1?   (See
> > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-desc-meps/2003Jul/att-
> > 0015/030714-ws-desc-irc.htm
> > for a definition of p2c1.)  What would be the impact?  Should we
> > adopt both
> > p2c1 and p2e?
> > 
> > 2. Unicast versus multicast.  Are there additional issues we need to
> > cover?
> > 
> > 3. Modeling faults.  Are there additional recommendations we can
> > make about
> > faults?  For example, could the two fault rules be reduced to a
> > single"message triggers fault" rule?  If so, what would be lost, and
> > would
> it
> > matter?
> > 
> > 4. Which pattern variations should we recommend?
> > 
> > 5. Correspondence to SOAP MEPs.
> > 
> > 
> > --
> > David Booth
> > W3C Fellow / Hewlett-Packard
> > Telephone: +1.617.253.1273
> 
> 
> 


-- 
Amelia A. Lewis
Architect, TIBCO/Extensibility, Inc.
alewis@tibco.com

Received on Wednesday, 16 July 2003 10:51:19 UTC