Anish Karmarkar
- NEW ISSUE: Information Model for EndpointReferences -- is it necessary? (Monday, 28 February)
- NEW ISSUE: Splitting the WSDL binding into 1.1 and 2.0 (was -- Re: WSDL 1.1 binding and schedule) (Sunday, 27 February)
- Re: NEW ISSUE: What is a logical address? (Tuesday, 22 February)
- WSDL 1.1 binding and schedule (Tuesday, 22 February)
- Re: NEW ISSUE: What is a logical address? (Tuesday, 22 February)
- Re: Issue i048 - summary of discussion (Monday, 21 February)
- Re: Issue i020, subissue 3 proposal (Monday, 21 February)
- NEW ISSUE: What is a logical address? (Monday, 21 February)
- Issue i020, subissue iv: resolution proposal (Saturday, 12 February)
- Re: Issue i018 -- EPR abstract properties and binding to SOAP (Monday, 7 February)
- Re: Issue i020, subissue iv (Monday, 7 February)
- issue 017, subissue b -- proposal in light of WSD's best practice decision (Monday, 7 February)
- Issue i018 -- EPR abstract properties and binding to SOAP (Monday, 7 February)
- Issue i020, subissue iv (Monday, 7 February)
Ashok Malhotra
Christopher B Ferris
David Hull
David Orchard
Doug Davis
Francisco Curbera
Glen Daniels
Hugo Haas
- i051: Text for the relationship between [action]'s value and the SOAP Action HTTP header / feature (Monday, 28 February)
- i014 again (Monday, 28 February)
- i004: Text for reorganization of security sections (Monday, 28 February)
- i051: Text about [action]'s relationship to SOAP Action feature (Monday, 28 February)
- Re: i051: Binding of message addressing properties in the SOAP underlying protocol [i051] (Friday, 25 February)
- Re: Issue 7 convo from Melbourne (Thursday, 24 February)
- Re: Issue 7 convo from Melbourne (Thursday, 24 February)
- Re: Issue i048 - summary of discussion (Monday, 21 February)
- NEW ISSUE: Binding of message addressing properties in the SOAP underlying protocol (Friday, 18 February)
- NEW ISSUE: Definition of SOAP 1.2 (and 1.1) modules (Friday, 18 February)
- Re: Issue 7 convo from Melbourne (Friday, 18 February)
- Re: SOAP binding: Action and Message-Id (Thursday, 17 February)
- Re: pointer to detailed metadata proposal (Tuesday, 15 February)
- NEW ISSUE: Misalignment of treatment of reply messages and fault messages (Tuesday, 15 February)
- Re: Issue i044: Definition of the rules to reply to a message in Core 3.2 (Monday, 14 February)
- Referencing the IRI RFC (was Re: Snapshots of the drafts for review) (Friday, 11 February)
- Re: Issue i001: what and how many things are we identifying? (Friday, 11 February)
- Re: Issue i044: Definition of the rules to reply to a message in Core 3.2 (Monday, 7 February)
- Issue i044: Definition of the rules to reply to a message in Core 3.2 (Tuesday, 1 February)
Jim Webber
Jonathan Marsh
- RE: NEW ISSUE: Schema tweaks (Monday, 28 February)
- NEW ISSUE: Schema tweaks (Sunday, 27 February)
- RE: i051: Binding of message addressing properties in the SOAP underlying protocol [i051] (Sunday, 27 February)
- RE: Schema now available ( was RE: Agenda: WS-A telcon 2005-02-21) (Friday, 25 February)
- i026 Metadata Proposal (amended) (Friday, 25 February)
- i052: What is a logical address? (Thursday, 24 February)
- i051: Binding of message addressing properties in the SOAP underlying protocol [i051] (Thursday, 24 February)
- IRI proposal (Thursday, 24 February)
- RE: Issue 7 convo from Melbourne (Monday, 21 February)
- RE: Issue 7 convo from Melbourne (Monday, 21 February)
- RE: Issue i048 - summary of discussion (Monday, 21 February)
- RE: i042: Extensibility Model (Monday, 14 February)
- RE: Issue i044: Definition of the rules to reply to a message in Core 3.2 (Tuesday, 8 February)
- RE: Issue i044: Definition of the rules to reply to a message in Core 3.2 (Tuesday, 8 February)
- RE: Issue i044: Definition of the rules to reply to a message in Core 3.2 (Tuesday, 8 February)
- RE: New issue: We need a 'default default' action for faults (Tuesday, 8 February)
- i049: We need a 'default default' action for faults (Monday, 7 February)
- RE: Issue i020, subissue iv (Monday, 7 February)
- RE: Issue i044: Definition of the rules to reply to a message in Core 3.2 (Monday, 7 February)
- Thoughts on TAG issue EndpointsRef47 (Saturday, 5 February)
- i017b: Action and ONM (Friday, 4 February)
- i042: Extensibility Model (Friday, 4 February)
- RE: New issue: We need a 'default default' action for faults (Friday, 4 February)
- RE: Issue i044: Definition of the rules to reply to a message in Core 3.2 (Friday, 4 February)
Marc Hadley
- New ed drafts available. (Monday, 28 February)
- Re: i004: Security Model (Wednesday, 23 February)
- i017 - Purpose of action property (Wednesday, 23 February)
- Re: i004: Security Model (Wednesday, 23 February)
- i004: Security Model (Wednesday, 23 February)
- Re: Security Considerations - Initial Proposal (Wednesday, 23 February)
- i049: Predefined default/anonymous action URIs (Wednesday, 23 February)
- Re: Issue i048 - summary of discussion (Tuesday, 22 February)
- Re: NEW ISSUE: Misalignment of treatment of reply messages and fault messages (Tuesday, 15 February)
- Re: Agenda: WS-A telcon 2005-02-14 (Monday, 14 February)
- Re: Issue i044: Definition of the rules to reply to a message in Core 3.2 (Tuesday, 8 February)
- Re: Issue i044: Definition of the rules to reply to a message in Core 3.2 (Tuesday, 8 February)
- Re: Issue i044: Definition of the rules to reply to a message in Core 3.2 (Monday, 7 February)
- Re: New issue: We need a 'default default' action for faults (Monday, 7 February)
- i047: Absolute vs relative URIs (Friday, 4 February)
- New editors drafts sans 'identify' used in conjunction with EPRs (Tuesday, 1 February)
Mark Baker
- Re: endpoint definition (Thursday, 24 February)
- Re: endpoint definition (Thursday, 24 February)
- endpoint definition (Thursday, 24 February)
- Re: NEW ISSUE: What is a logical address? (Tuesday, 22 February)
- Re: NEW ISSUE: What is a logical address? (Tuesday, 22 February)
- Re: Thoughts on TAG issue EndpointsRef47 (Saturday, 19 February)
- Re: Issue i020, subissue 3 proposal (Tuesday, 15 February)
- Re: Thoughts on TAG issue EndpointsRef47 (Wednesday, 9 February)
- Re: Thoughts on TAG issue EndpointsRef47 (Monday, 7 February)
- Re: Thoughts on TAG issue EndpointsRef47 (Monday, 7 February)
- "transport address" (was Re: Thoughts on TAG issue EndpointsRef47 (Monday, 7 February)
- Re: Thoughts on TAG issue EndpointsRef47 (Monday, 7 February)
- Re: Thoughts on TAG issue EndpointsRef47 (Sunday, 6 February)
Mark Little
Mark Nottingham
- Agenda: 2005-02-27 F2F, Boston, MA US (Wednesday, 23 February)
- Re: i017 - Purpose of action property (Wednesday, 23 February)
- Re: straw-man agenda for WS-A/TAG Joint Meeting (Wednesday, 23 February)
- Re: NEW ISSUE: What is a logical address? (Tuesday, 22 February)
- Re: NEW ISSUE: Misalignment of treatment of reply messages and fault messages [i050] (Tuesday, 22 February)
- Re: NEW ISSUE: Binding of message addressing properties in the SOAP underlying protocol [i051] (Tuesday, 22 February)
- Re: NEW ISSUE: Definition of SOAP 1.2 (and 1.1) modules (Tuesday, 22 February)
- Minutes for the 2005-02-21 teleconference (Tuesday, 22 February)
- Re: Minutes for the 2005-02-14 teleconference (Tuesday, 22 February)
- Agenda: WS-A telcon 2005-02-21 (Sunday, 20 February)
- Agenda: 2005-02-27 F2F, Boston, MA US [DRAFT] (Thursday, 17 February)
- Re: Minutes for the 2005-02-14 teleconference (Thursday, 17 February)
- Minutes for the 2005-02-14 teleconference (Monday, 14 February)
- Re: Referencing the IRI RFC (was Re: Snapshots of the drafts for review) (Saturday, 12 February)
- Agenda: WS-A telcon 2005-02-14 (Saturday, 12 February)
- Minutes of the 2005-02-07 teleconference (Friday, 11 February)
- Agenda: WS-A telcon 2005-02-07 (Saturday, 5 February)
- Minutes of the 2005-01-31 teleconference (Wednesday, 2 February)
- Re: Agenda for joint TAG/WS-Addressing Meeting at Feb. 2005 Technical Plenary (Tuesday, 1 February)
Martin Gudgin
noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com
paul.downey@bt.com
- ws-addr overview for joint meeting with TAG slides (Monday, 28 February)
- RE: straw-man agenda for WS-A/TAG Joint Meeting (Wednesday, 23 February)
- RE: NEW ISSUE: What is a logical address? (Tuesday, 22 February)
- RE: detailed proposal for issues i024 and i026 (Tuesday, 15 February)
- RE: Issue i020 -- restate the subissues in issue i020 (Tuesday, 15 February)
- RE: Thoughts on TAG issue EndpointsRef47 (Wednesday, 9 February)
- RE: Thoughts on TAG issue EndpointsRef47 (Tuesday, 8 February)
- RE: Thoughts on TAG issue EndpointsRef47 (Monday, 7 February)
- RE: Thoughts on TAG issue EndpointsRef47 (Monday, 7 February)
- RE: detailed proposal for issues i024 and i026 (Monday, 7 February)
- RE: Thoughts on TAG issue EndpointsRef47 (Monday, 7 February)
- RE: Thoughts on TAG issue EndpointsRef47 (Monday, 7 February)
- RE: i007 - Issue 7 convo from Melbourne (Friday, 4 February)
Philippe Le Hegaret
Rich Salz
Rogers, Tony
Savas Parastatidis
Steve Maine
Tom Rutt
- Re: Issue i020, subissue 3 proposal (Tuesday, 15 February)
- Re: NEW ISSUE: Misalignment of treatment of reply messages and fault messages (Tuesday, 15 February)
- Re: Issue i044: Definition of the rules to reply to a message in Core 3.2 (Monday, 14 February)
- Re: Thoughts on TAG issue EndpointsRef47 (Tuesday, 8 February)
- Re: Issue i044: Definition of the rules to reply to a message in Core 3.2 (Tuesday, 8 February)
- Re: Thoughts on TAG issue EndpointsRef47 (Monday, 7 February)
- Re: Thoughts on TAG issue EndpointsRef47 (Monday, 7 February)
- Re: Thoughts on TAG issue EndpointsRef47 (Monday, 7 February)
- Re: Thoughts on TAG issue EndpointsRef47 (Sunday, 6 February)
Ugo Corda
Vikas Deolaliker
Vinoski, Stephen
Yalcinalp, Umit
Last message date: Monday, 28 February 2005 23:06:43 UTC