i051: Text for the relationship between [action]'s value and the SOAP Action HTTP header / feature
New ed drafts available.
NEW ISSUE: Information Model for EndpointReferences -- is it necessary?
i014 again
i004: Text for reorganization of security sections
i051: Text about [action]'s relationship to SOAP Action feature
W3C Rec track 101
ws-addr overview for joint meeting with TAG slides
NEW ISSUE: Schema tweaks
i026 Metadata Proposal (amended)
i052: What is a logical address?
i051: Binding of message addressing properties in the SOAP underlying protocol [i051]
- Re: i051: Binding of message addressing properties in the SOAP underlying protocol [i051]
- RE: i051: Binding of message addressing properties in the SOAP underlying protocol [i051]
- RE: i051: Binding of message addressing properties in the SOAP underlying protocol [i051]
IRI proposal
Agenda: 2005-02-27 F2F, Boston, MA US
RE: straw-man agenda for WS-A/TAG Joint Meeting
Re: straw-man agenda for WS-A/TAG Joint Meeting
i017 - Purpose of action property
i004: Security Model
i049: Predefined default/anonymous action URIs
Minutes for the 2005-02-21 teleconference
WSDL 1.1 binding and schedule
- RE: WSDL 1.1 binding and schedule
- Re: WSDL 1.1 binding and schedule
- NEW ISSUE: Splitting the WSDL binding into 1.1 and 2.0 (was -- Re: WSDL 1.1 binding and schedule)
NEW ISSUE: What is a logical address?
- Re: NEW ISSUE: What is a logical address?
- Re: NEW ISSUE: What is a logical address?
- RE: NEW ISSUE: What is a logical address?
- Re: NEW ISSUE: What is a logical address?
- RE: NEW ISSUE: What is a logical address?
- Re: NEW ISSUE: What is a logical address?
Security Considerations - Initial Proposal
- Re: Security Considerations - Initial Proposal
- RE: Security Considerations - Initial Proposal
- Re: Security Considerations - Initial Proposal
- RE: Security Considerations - Initial Proposal
Schema now available ( was RE: Agenda: WS-A telcon 2005-02-21)
- Re: Schema now available ( was RE: Agenda: WS-A telcon 2005-02-21)
- RE: Schema now available ( was RE: Agenda: WS-A telcon 2005-02-21)
Agenda: WS-A telcon 2005-02-21
Regrets for 2/21 call
NEW ISSUE: Binding of message addressing properties in the SOAP underlying protocol
NEW ISSUE: Definition of SOAP 1.2 (and 1.1) modules
Agenda: 2005-02-27 F2F, Boston, MA US [DRAFT]
SOAP binding: Action and Message-Id
Re: Issue i020, subissue 3 proposal
NEW ISSUE: Misalignment of treatment of reply messages and fault messages
- Re: NEW ISSUE: Misalignment of treatment of reply messages and fault messages
- Re: NEW ISSUE: Misalignment of treatment of reply messages and fault messages
- Re: NEW ISSUE: Misalignment of treatment of reply messages and fault messages
- Re: NEW ISSUE: Misalignment of treatment of reply messages and fault messages [i050]
pointer to detailed metadata proposal
- RE: pointer to detailed metadata proposal
- RE: pointer to detailed metadata proposal
- RE: pointer to detailed metadata proposal
RE: Issue i020 -- restate the subissues in issue i020
SSDL: SOAP Service Description Language
Minutes for the 2005-02-14 teleconference
Re: Issue i044: Definition of the rules to reply to a message in Core 3.2
RE: Issue 7 - processing model for SOAP headers
Issue i020, subissue iv: resolution proposal
Agenda: WS-A telcon 2005-02-14
Referencing the IRI RFC (was Re: Snapshots of the drafts for review)
Re: Issue i001: what and how many things are we identifying?
Minutes of the 2005-02-07 teleconference
Section 2.3 in Editors' draft
i049: We need a 'default default' action for faults
issue 017, subissue b -- proposal in light of WSD's best practice decision
Issue i048 - summary of discussion
- RE: Issue i048 - summary of discussion
- RE: Issue i048 - summary of discussion
- RE: Issue i048 - summary of discussion
- RE: Issue i048 - summary of discussion
Issue i018 -- EPR abstract properties and binding to SOAP
Issue i020, subissue iv
Thoughts on TAG issue EndpointsRef47
- Re: Thoughts on TAG issue EndpointsRef47
- Re: Thoughts on TAG issue EndpointsRef47
- RE: Thoughts on TAG issue EndpointsRef47
- RE: Thoughts on TAG issue EndpointsRef47
- RE: Thoughts on TAG issue EndpointsRef47
- RE: Thoughts on TAG issue EndpointsRef47
- RE: Thoughts on TAG issue EndpointsRef47
- RE: Thoughts on TAG issue EndpointsRef47
- RE: Thoughts on TAG issue EndpointsRef47
- RE: Thoughts on TAG issue EndpointsRef47
- RE: Thoughts on TAG issue EndpointsRef47
- RE: Thoughts on TAG issue EndpointsRef47
- RE: Thoughts on TAG issue EndpointsRef47
- RE: Thoughts on TAG issue EndpointsRef47
- RE: Thoughts on TAG issue EndpointsRef47
- RE: Thoughts on TAG issue EndpointsRef47
- RE: Thoughts on TAG issue EndpointsRef47
Agenda: WS-A telcon 2005-02-07
i017b: Action and ONM
i042: Extensibility Model
detailed proposal for issues i024 and i026
- RE: detailed proposal for issues i024 and i026
- RE: detailed proposal for issues i024 and i026
- RE: detailed proposal for issues i024 and i026
- RE: detailed proposal for issues i024 and i026
i047: Absolute vs relative URIs
RE: i007 - Issue 7 convo from Melbourne
Issue 7 convo from Melbourne
- Re: Issue 7 convo from Melbourne
- Re: Issue 7 convo from Melbourne
- RE: Issue 7 convo from Melbourne
- RE: Issue 7 convo from Melbourne
Minutes of the 2005-01-31 teleconference
Re: Agenda for joint TAG/WS-Addressing Meeting at Feb. 2005 Technical Plenary
New editors drafts sans 'identify' used in conjunction with EPRs
RE: Proposed resolution for issues 24 (metadata) and 26 (multiple ports)
Issue i044: Definition of the rules to reply to a message in Core 3.2
- RE: Issue i044: Definition of the rules to reply to a message in Core 3.2
- RE: Issue i044: Definition of the rules to reply to a message in Core 3.2
- RE: Issue i044: Definition of the rules to reply to a message in Core 3.2
- RE: Issue i044: Definition of the rules to reply to a message in Core 3.2
- RE: Issue i044: Definition of the rules to reply to a message in Core 3.2
Agenda for joint TAG/WS-Addressing Meeting at Feb. 2005 Technical Plenary
New issue: We need a 'default default' action for faults
- Re: New issue: We need a 'default default' action for faults
- RE: New issue: We need a 'default default' action for faults
- RE: New issue: We need a 'default default' action for faults
- RE: New issue: We need a 'default default' action for faults