- From: Tim Ewald <tim@mindreef.com>
- Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2005 14:31:14 -0400
- To: "'Christopher B Ferris'" <chrisfer@us.ibm.com>, "'Rich Salz'" <rsalz@datapower.com>
- Cc: <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>, <public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org>
Makes sense to me. Tim- > -----Original Message----- > From: Christopher B Ferris [mailto:chrisfer@us.ibm.com] > Sent: Monday, August 15, 2005 2:21 PM > To: Rich Salz > Cc: public-ws-addressing@w3.org; > public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org; tim@mindreef.com > Subject: Re: fabrikam? > > I believe that subdomains would be consistent with RFC2606. > > Cheers, > > Christopher Ferris > STSM, Emerging e-business Industry Architecture > email: chrisfer@us.ibm.com > blog: http://webpages.charter.net/chrisfer/blog.html > phone: +1 508 377 9295 > > public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org wrote on 08/15/2005 02:15:46 PM: > > > > > > I think the limitation of example.com is that in a lot of > cases you > want to > > > show URIs from multiple entities participating in an interchange. > > > From > a > > > pedagogical perspective, I think it's easier to > understand examples > that use > > > other domain names. > > > > This is a good point. I wonder if sub-domains > (customer.example.com, > > home-office.example.com, etc) works? > > > > /r$ > > > > -- > > Rich Salz, Chief Security Architect > > DataPower Technology > http://www.datapower.com > > XS40 XML Security Gateway > http://www.datapower.com/products/xs40.html > > > >
Received on Monday, 15 August 2005 18:31:26 UTC