RE: Action Item

Not really. 

It is there for completeness. I will be happy to remove it. 

--umit
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Marc.Hadley@Sun.COM [mailto:Marc.Hadley@Sun.COM] 
> Sent: Monday, Dec 05, 2005 12:54 PM
> To: Yalcinalp, Umit
> Cc: public-ws-addressing@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Action Item
> 
> Another thought: do we actually need <Anonymous>optional</Anonymous>  
> since that is synonymous with the absence of <Anonymous> ?
> 
> Marc.
> 
> On Dec 2, 2005, at 5:42 PM, Yalcinalp, Umit wrote:
> 
> > This completes my action item from last week [1].
> >
> > Please find the updated writeup for the  option1 [2] named  
> > ProposalLast. Purple is the changed/new text in comparison to the  
> > editor's draft [3].
> >
> > Let me remind everyone that this writeup reflects the consensus  
> > point of the f2f and past 2 weeks discussion in the tc to rewrite  
> > the agreed semantics up to this point.
> >
> > - We have two elements, UsingAddressing and Anonymous 
> (changed from  
> > AnonymousUse as suggested last week)
> > - UsingAddressing may appear in binding/endpoint. (as it is)
> > - I removed the default attribute, however UsingAddressing  
> > indicates support for both anon and non-anon URIs as addresses as  
> > it was in the previous writeup [2].
> >
> > - Anonymous element uses required/prohibited/allowed as values. It  
> > can only appear within a binding operation. The values are changed  
> > per the decision last week [1].
> >
> > - SOAP1.1/HTTP binding is described. I cleaned it up from the last  
> > writeup [2].
> > - I deleted one of the examples.
> >
> > David Hull, I did NOT include your suggestions to this as I have  
> > made some changes to the current SOAP1.1/HTTP section (some  
> > restructuring/simplification). Since you felt that your changes  
> > were additive, my suggestion for you is to take the text and  
> > illustrate the changes with this latest writeup.  I really do not  
> > have the cycles to include your text and find the conflicts/ 
> > synergy, at least not this week, or whatever is left of it :-(
> >
> > Marc, editorial comments are appreciated esp. with the last  
> > paragraph of 3.1 prior to 3.1.1 if we decide to use this 
> writeup in  
> > the spec.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > --umit
> >
> >
> > [1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/addr/5/11/28-ws-addr-minutes.html
> > [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/ 
> > 2005Nov/0084.html
> > [3] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2004/ws/addressing/ws-addr- 
> > wsdl.html?content-type=text/html;%20charset=utf-8
> >
> >
> > Ps. It feels like Jonathan is trying to take the wind from 
> my sails  
> > with the policy assertion debate :-D.
> > <<ProposalLastWithoutDefaults.html>>
> > ----------------------
> >
> > Dr. Umit Yalcinalp
> > Standards Architect
> > NetWeaver Industry Standards
> > SAP Labs, LLC
> > umit.yalcinalp@sap.com
> > Tel: (650) 320-3095
> >
> > <ProposalLastWithoutDefaults.html>
> 
> ---
> Marc Hadley <marc.hadley at sun.com>
> Business Alliances, CTO Office, Sun Microsystems.
> 
> 
>

Received on Monday, 5 December 2005 20:57:17 UTC