public-ws-addressing@w3.org from February 2005 by date

Monday, 28 February 2005

• i051: Text for the relationship between [action]'s value and the SOAP Action HTTP header / feature Hugo Haas
• New ed drafts available. Marc Hadley
• NEW ISSUE: Information Model for EndpointReferences -- is it necessary? Anish Karmarkar
• i014 again Hugo Haas
• i004: Text for reorganization of security sections Hugo Haas
• Re: NEW ISSUE: Schema tweaks Rich Salz
• Re: NEW ISSUE: Schema tweaks David Hull
• RE: NEW ISSUE: Schema tweaks Rogers, Tony
• i051: Text about [action]'s relationship to SOAP Action feature Hugo Haas
• Re: NEW ISSUE: Schema tweaks Rich Salz
• RE: NEW ISSUE: Schema tweaks Jonathan Marsh
• W3C Rec track 101 Philippe Le Hegaret
• ws-addr overview for joint meeting with TAG slides paul.downey@bt.com

Sunday, 27 February 2005

• NEW ISSUE: Splitting the WSDL binding into 1.1 and 2.0 (was -- Re: WSDL 1.1 binding and schedule) Anish Karmarkar
• RE: NEW ISSUE: Schema tweaks David Orchard
• NEW ISSUE: Schema tweaks Jonathan Marsh
• RE: i051: Binding of message addressing properties in the SOAP underlying protocol [i051] Jonathan Marsh
• RE: i051: Binding of message addressing properties in the SOAP underlying protocol [i051] Glen Daniels

Friday, 25 February 2005

• Re: i051: Binding of message addressing properties in the SOAP underlying protocol [i051] Hugo Haas
• RE: Schema now available ( was RE: Agenda: WS-A telcon 2005-02-21) Jonathan Marsh
• i026 Metadata Proposal (amended) Jonathan Marsh

Thursday, 24 February 2005

• RE: straw-man agenda for WS-A/TAG Joint Meeting noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com
• Re: endpoint definition Mark Little
• Re: Issue 7 convo from Melbourne Hugo Haas
• Re: Issue 7 convo from Melbourne Hugo Haas
• Re: NEW ISSUE: What is a logical address? Francisco Curbera
• RE: endpoint definition Jim Webber
• Re: endpoint definition Mark Baker
• RE: endpoint definition David Orchard
• RE: endpoint definition Rich Salz
• Re: endpoint definition Mark Baker
• RE: endpoint definition Jim Webber
• endpoint definition Mark Baker
• Re: Security Considerations - Initial Proposal Rich Salz
• RE: Security Considerations - Initial Proposal Rogers, Tony
• Re: Security Considerations - Initial Proposal Francisco Curbera
• RE: NEW ISSUE: What is a logical address? Jim Webber
• i052: What is a logical address? Jonathan Marsh
• i051: Binding of message addressing properties in the SOAP underlying protocol [i051] Jonathan Marsh
• IRI proposal Jonathan Marsh

Wednesday, 23 February 2005

• Agenda: 2005-02-27 F2F, Boston, MA US Mark Nottingham
• RE: straw-man agenda for WS-A/TAG Joint Meeting paul.downey@bt.com
• Re: i017 - Purpose of action property Mark Nottingham
• Re: straw-man agenda for WS-A/TAG Joint Meeting Mark Nottingham
• Re: Schema now available ( was RE: Agenda: WS-A telcon 2005-02-21) Rich Salz
• Re: i004: Security Model Marc Hadley
• RE: i004: Security Model Martin Gudgin
• i017 - Purpose of action property Marc Hadley
• Re: i004: Security Model Marc Hadley
• RE: i004: Security Model Martin Gudgin
• i004: Security Model Marc Hadley
• Re: i049: Predefined default/anonymous action URIs Doug Davis
• RE: Security Considerations - Initial Proposal Martin Gudgin
• Re: Security Considerations - Initial Proposal Marc Hadley
• i049: Predefined default/anonymous action URIs Marc Hadley

Tuesday, 22 February 2005

• Re: NEW ISSUE: What is a logical address? Mark Nottingham
• Re: NEW ISSUE: Misalignment of treatment of reply messages and fault messages [i050] Mark Nottingham
• Re: NEW ISSUE: Binding of message addressing properties in the SOAP underlying protocol [i051] Mark Nottingham
• Re: NEW ISSUE: Definition of SOAP 1.2 (and 1.1) modules Mark Nottingham
• RE: NEW ISSUE: What is a logical address? Vikas Deolaliker
• Minutes for the 2005-02-21 teleconference Mark Nottingham
• Re: Minutes for the 2005-02-14 teleconference Mark Nottingham
• Re: Issue i048 - summary of discussion Marc Hadley
• Re: NEW ISSUE: What is a logical address? Mark Baker
• Re: WSDL 1.1 binding and schedule Mark Little
• Re: NEW ISSUE: What is a logical address? Anish Karmarkar
• RE: NEW ISSUE: What is a logical address? paul.downey@bt.com
• Re: NEW ISSUE: What is a logical address? Mark Baker
• RE: WSDL 1.1 binding and schedule Rogers, Tony
• WSDL 1.1 binding and schedule Anish Karmarkar
• Re: NEW ISSUE: What is a logical address? Anish Karmarkar

Monday, 21 February 2005

• RE: Issue 7 convo from Melbourne Jonathan Marsh
• RE: Issue 7 convo from Melbourne Jonathan Marsh
• Re: Issue i048 - summary of discussion Hugo Haas
• RE: Issue i048 - summary of discussion Yalcinalp, Umit
• RE: Issue i048 - summary of discussion David Orchard
• Re: Issue i048 - summary of discussion Anish Karmarkar
• Re: Issue i020, subissue 3 proposal Anish Karmarkar
• NEW ISSUE: What is a logical address? Anish Karmarkar
• RE: Issue i048 - summary of discussion Jonathan Marsh
• Security Considerations - Initial Proposal Martin Gudgin
• Schema now available ( was RE: Agenda: WS-A telcon 2005-02-21) Martin Gudgin
• RE: Issue i048 - summary of discussion Yalcinalp, Umit
• RE: Minutes for the 2005-02-14 teleconference Yalcinalp, Umit

Sunday, 20 February 2005

• Agenda: WS-A telcon 2005-02-21 Mark Nottingham

Saturday, 19 February 2005

• Re: Thoughts on TAG issue EndpointsRef47 Mark Baker

Friday, 18 February 2005

• RE: detailed proposal for issues i024 and i026 David Orchard
• RE: Thoughts on TAG issue EndpointsRef47 David Orchard
• RE: i042: Extensibility Model David Orchard
• RE: pointer to detailed metadata proposal Vikas Deolaliker
• Regrets for 2/21 call David Hull
• NEW ISSUE: Binding of message addressing properties in the SOAP underlying protocol Hugo Haas
• NEW ISSUE: Definition of SOAP 1.2 (and 1.1) modules Hugo Haas
• Re: Issue 7 convo from Melbourne Hugo Haas

Thursday, 17 February 2005

• Agenda: 2005-02-27 F2F, Boston, MA US [DRAFT] Mark Nottingham
• Re: Minutes for the 2005-02-14 teleconference Mark Nottingham
• RE: Minutes for the 2005-02-14 teleconference Yalcinalp, Umit
• RE: pointer to detailed metadata proposal Vinoski, Stephen
• Re: SOAP binding: Action and Message-Id Hugo Haas

Wednesday, 16 February 2005

• RE: pointer to detailed metadata proposal Vikas Deolaliker

Tuesday, 15 February 2005

• Re: NEW ISSUE: Misalignment of treatment of reply messages and fault messages Marc Hadley
• SOAP binding: Action and Message-Id Philippe Le Hegaret
• Re: Issue i020, subissue 3 proposal Mark Baker
• Re: Issue i020, subissue 3 proposal Tom Rutt
• Re: NEW ISSUE: Misalignment of treatment of reply messages and fault messages Tom Rutt
• Re: NEW ISSUE: Misalignment of treatment of reply messages and fault messages David Hull
• Re: pointer to detailed metadata proposal Hugo Haas
• Re: NEW ISSUE: Misalignment of treatment of reply messages and fault messages Mark Little
• Re: NEW ISSUE: Misalignment of treatment of reply messages and fault messages Doug Davis
• NEW ISSUE: Misalignment of treatment of reply messages and fault messages Hugo Haas
• RE: detailed proposal for issues i024 and i026 paul.downey@bt.com
• RE: pointer to detailed metadata proposal Ashok Malhotra
• pointer to detailed metadata proposal Vinoski, Stephen
• RE: Issue i020 -- restate the subissues in issue i020 paul.downey@bt.com
• SSDL: SOAP Service Description Language Savas Parastatidis

Monday, 14 February 2005

• Minutes for the 2005-02-14 teleconference Mark Nottingham
• Re: Issue i044: Definition of the rules to reply to a message in Core 3.2 Doug Davis
• RE: Issue i020, subissue iv: resolution proposal Yalcinalp, Umit
• Re: Issue i044: Definition of the rules to reply to a message in Core 3.2 Tom Rutt
• Re: Issue i044: Definition of the rules to reply to a message in Core 3.2 Hugo Haas
• RE: i042: Extensibility Model Jonathan Marsh
• Re: Agenda: WS-A telcon 2005-02-14 Marc Hadley

Saturday, 12 February 2005

• RE: Issue 7 - processing model for SOAP headers noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com
• Re: Referencing the IRI RFC (was Re: Snapshots of the drafts for review) Mark Nottingham
• Issue i020, subissue iv: resolution proposal Anish Karmarkar
• Agenda: WS-A telcon 2005-02-14 Mark Nottingham

Friday, 11 February 2005

• Referencing the IRI RFC (was Re: Snapshots of the drafts for review) Hugo Haas
• Re: Issue i001: what and how many things are we identifying? Hugo Haas
• RE: i042: Extensibility Model Yalcinalp, Umit
• Minutes of the 2005-02-07 teleconference Mark Nottingham

Wednesday, 9 February 2005

• RE: Thoughts on TAG issue EndpointsRef47 paul.downey@bt.com
• Re: Thoughts on TAG issue EndpointsRef47 Mark Baker
• RE: Thoughts on TAG issue EndpointsRef47 Ugo Corda

Tuesday, 8 February 2005

• RE: Thoughts on TAG issue EndpointsRef47 Savas Parastatidis
• RE: Thoughts on TAG issue EndpointsRef47 Jim Webber
• Re: Issue i044: Definition of the rules to reply to a message in Core 3.2 Doug Davis
• Re: Issue i044: Definition of the rules to reply to a message in Core 3.2 Marc Hadley
• Section 2.3 in Editors' draft David Hull
• Re: Thoughts on TAG issue EndpointsRef47 Tom Rutt
• RE: Issue i044: Definition of the rules to reply to a message in Core 3.2 Jonathan Marsh
• Re: Issue i044: Definition of the rules to reply to a message in Core 3.2 Tom Rutt
• Re: Thoughts on TAG issue EndpointsRef47 Rich Salz
• RE: Issue i044: Definition of the rules to reply to a message in Core 3.2 Doug Davis
• Re: Issue i044: Definition of the rules to reply to a message in Core 3.2 Marc Hadley
• RE: Issue i044: Definition of the rules to reply to a message in Core 3.2 Jonathan Marsh
• RE: Thoughts on TAG issue EndpointsRef47 paul.downey@bt.com
• RE: Issue i044: Definition of the rules to reply to a message in Core 3.2 Doug Davis
• RE: Issue i044: Definition of the rules to reply to a message in Core 3.2 Jonathan Marsh
• RE: New issue: We need a 'default default' action for faults Jonathan Marsh

Monday, 7 February 2005

• i049: We need a 'default default' action for faults Jonathan Marsh
• Re: Thoughts on TAG issue EndpointsRef47 Tom Rutt
• RE: Thoughts on TAG issue EndpointsRef47 Savas Parastatidis
• RE: Thoughts on TAG issue EndpointsRef47 paul.downey@bt.com
• Re: Thoughts on TAG issue EndpointsRef47 Tom Rutt
• RE: Thoughts on TAG issue EndpointsRef47 paul.downey@bt.com
• Re: Thoughts on TAG issue EndpointsRef47 Tom Rutt
• RE: detailed proposal for issues i024 and i026 Vinoski, Stephen
• RE: detailed proposal for issues i024 and i026 paul.downey@bt.com
• RE: Issue i044: Definition of the rules to reply to a message in Core 3.2 Doug Davis
• RE: Thoughts on TAG issue EndpointsRef47 paul.downey@bt.com
• RE: Thoughts on TAG issue EndpointsRef47 paul.downey@bt.com
• Re: Issue i018 -- EPR abstract properties and binding to SOAP Anish Karmarkar
• Re: Issue i020, subissue iv Anish Karmarkar
• Re: Thoughts on TAG issue EndpointsRef47 Mark Baker
• issue 017, subissue b -- proposal in light of WSD's best practice decision Anish Karmarkar
• RE: Issue i020, subissue iv Jonathan Marsh
• Re: Issue i044: Definition of the rules to reply to a message in Core 3.2 Marc Hadley
• Re: New issue: We need a 'default default' action for faults Marc Hadley
• Re: Thoughts on TAG issue EndpointsRef47 Christopher B Ferris
• RE: Issue i044: Definition of the rules to reply to a message in Core 3.2 Jonathan Marsh
• Re: Thoughts on TAG issue EndpointsRef47 Mark Baker
• Issue i048 - summary of discussion Francisco Curbera
• RE: Thoughts on TAG issue EndpointsRef47 Savas Parastatidis
• RE: Thoughts on TAG issue EndpointsRef47 Glen Daniels
• Re: Issue i044: Definition of the rules to reply to a message in Core 3.2 Doug Davis
• Re: Thoughts on TAG issue EndpointsRef47 Christopher B Ferris
• "transport address" (was Re: Thoughts on TAG issue EndpointsRef47 Mark Baker
• RE: Issue i018 -- EPR abstract properties and binding to SOAP Martin Gudgin
• RE: Thoughts on TAG issue EndpointsRef47 Martin Gudgin
• RE: Thoughts on TAG issue EndpointsRef47 Savas Parastatidis
• Re: Issue i044: Definition of the rules to reply to a message in Core 3.2 Hugo Haas
• Issue i018 -- EPR abstract properties and binding to SOAP Anish Karmarkar
• Issue i020, subissue iv Anish Karmarkar
• Re: Thoughts on TAG issue EndpointsRef47 Mark Baker

Sunday, 6 February 2005

• Re: Thoughts on TAG issue EndpointsRef47 Steve Maine
• Re: Thoughts on TAG issue EndpointsRef47 Tom Rutt
• Re: Thoughts on TAG issue EndpointsRef47 Rich Salz
• Re: Thoughts on TAG issue EndpointsRef47 Mark Baker

Saturday, 5 February 2005

• Thoughts on TAG issue EndpointsRef47 Jonathan Marsh
• Agenda: WS-A telcon 2005-02-07 Mark Nottingham

Friday, 4 February 2005

• i017b: Action and ONM Jonathan Marsh
• i042: Extensibility Model Jonathan Marsh
• RE: New issue: We need a 'default default' action for faults Jonathan Marsh
• RE: Issue i044: Definition of the rules to reply to a message in Core 3.2 Jonathan Marsh
• detailed proposal for issues i024 and i026 Vinoski, Stephen
• RE: New issue: We need a 'default default' action for faults Martin Gudgin
• i047: Absolute vs relative URIs Marc Hadley
• Re: Issue 7 convo from Melbourne Rich Salz
• RE: i007 - Issue 7 convo from Melbourne paul.downey@bt.com
• Issue 7 convo from Melbourne Glen Daniels
• Re: Agenda for joint TAG/WS-Addressing Meeting at Feb. 2005 Technical Plenary noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com

Wednesday, 2 February 2005

• Minutes of the 2005-01-31 teleconference Mark Nottingham

Tuesday, 1 February 2005

• Re: Agenda for joint TAG/WS-Addressing Meeting at Feb. 2005 Technical Plenary noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com
• Re: Agenda for joint TAG/WS-Addressing Meeting at Feb. 2005 Technical Plenary Mark Nottingham
• New editors drafts sans 'identify' used in conjunction with EPRs Marc Hadley
• RE: Proposed resolution for issues 24 (metadata) and 26 (multiple ports) Vinoski, Stephen
• Issue i044: Definition of the rules to reply to a message in Core 3.2 Hugo Haas
• Agenda for joint TAG/WS-Addressing Meeting at Feb. 2005 Technical Plenary noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com
• Re: New issue: We need a 'default default' action for faults Mark Little
• New issue: We need a 'default default' action for faults Martin Gudgin
• RE: Action related to i043 Rich Salz

Last message date: Monday, 28 February 2005 23:06:43 UTC