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

Monday, 31 January 2005

• RE: Proposed resolution for issues 24 (metadata) and 26 (multiple ports) Vikas Deolaliker
• i009 - processingStyle proposal paul.downey@bt.com
• RE: Action related to i043 Martin Gudgin
• Re: Action related to i043 Rich Salz
• RE: Action related to i043 Martin Gudgin
• Re: Action related to i043 Rich Salz
• Re: Proposed resolution for issues 24 (metadata) and 26 (multiple ports) Marc Hadley
• RE: NEW ISSUE: [relationship] Order of URI pairs is ambiguous Rogers, Tony
• Proposed resolution for issues 24 (metadata) and 26 (multiple ports) Vinoski, Stephen
• RE: NEW ISSUE: Comparison of URIs used as identifiers. [i046] Jonathan Marsh
• NEW ISSUE: [relationship] Order of URI pairs is ambiguous Jonathan Marsh
• Action related to i043 Martin Gudgin
• Re: Issue i001: what and how many things are we identifying? noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com

Sunday, 30 January 2005

• Re: NEW ISSUE: EPR comparison rule doesn't support Web services gateways/routers Mark Little

Saturday, 29 January 2005

• RE: NEW ISSUE: EPR comparison rule doesn't support Web services gateways/routers Rich Salz
• RE: NEW ISSUE: EPR comparison rule doesn't support Web services gateways/routers [i048] Ugo Corda
• Agenda: WS-A telcon 2005-01-31 Mark Nottingham
• Re: NEW ISSUE: EPR comparison rule doesn't support Web services gateways/routers [i048] Mark Nottingham
• Re: NEW ISSUE: Absolute vs relative URIs [i047] Mark Nottingham

Friday, 28 January 2005

• RE: NEW ISSUE: EPR comparison rule doesn't support Web services gateways/routers Savas Parastatidis
• RE: NEW ISSUE: EPR comparison rule doesn't support Web services gateways/routers Vinoski, Stephen
• RE: Issue 7 - processing model for SOAP headers Tim Ewald
• RE: NEW ISSUE: EPR comparison rule doesn't support Web services gateways/routers Francisco Curbera
• RE: NEW ISSUE: EPR comparison rule doesn't support Web services gateways/routers Ugo Corda
• RE: NEW ISSUE: EPR comparison rule doesn't support Web services gateways/routers paul.downey@bt.com
• RE: NEW ISSUE: EPR comparison rule doesn't support Web services gateways/routers Vikas Deolaliker
• Re: Snapshots of the drafts for review Hugo Haas
• RE: Snapshots of the drafts for review Ashok Malhotra
• RE: Snapshots of the drafts for review paul.downey@bt.com
• Snapshots of the drafts for review Hugo Haas

Thursday, 27 January 2005

• Issue 15 - Redirection Marc Hadley
• Re: NEW ISSUE: EPR comparison rule doesn't support Web services gateways/routers Mark Baker
• Re: NEW ISSUE: EPR comparison rule doesn't support Web services gateways/routers Mark Baker
• Re: NEW ISSUE: EPR comparison rule doesn't support Web services gateways/routers Greg Truty
• Re: NEW ISSUE: EPR comparison rule doesn't support Web services gateways/routers Rich Salz
• RE: NEW ISSUE: EPR comparison rule doesn't support Web services gateways/routers Francisco Curbera
• Re: NEW ISSUE: EPR comparison rule doesn't support Web services gateways/routers Francisco Curbera
• RE: NEW ISSUE: EPR comparison rule doesn't support Web services gateways/routers Rich Salz
• RE: NEW ISSUE: EPR comparison rule doesn't support Web services gateways/routers Savas Parastatidis
• Re: NEW ISSUE: EPR comparison rule doesn't support Web services gateways/routers Mark Baker
• Re: NEW ISSUE: EPR comparison rule doesn't support Web services gateways/routers Rich Salz

Wednesday, 26 January 2005

• Re: NEW ISSUE: EPR comparison rule doesn't support Web services gateways/routers Francisco Curbera
• RE: NEW ISSUE: EPR comparison rule doesn't support Web services gateways/routers Bergersen, Rebecca
• Re: NEW ISSUE: EPR comparison rule doesn't support Web services gateways/routers Tom Rutt
• Re: NEW ISSUE: EPR comparison rule doesn't support Web services gateways/routers Mark Baker
• RE: NEW ISSUE: EPR comparison rule doesn't support Web services gateways/routers Ugo Corda
• RE: NEW ISSUE: EPR comparison rule doesn't support Web services gateways/routers Vinoski, Stephen
• RE: NEW ISSUE: EPR comparison rule doesn't support Web services gateways/routers Francisco Curbera
• Fwd: IRI and updated URI specs published as RFC 3987, RFC 3986 (STD 66) Mark Nottingham
• NEW ISSUE: Absolute vs relative URIs Marc Hadley
• RE: NEW ISSUE: EPR comparison rule doesn't support Web services gateways/routers Ugo Corda
• RE: NEW ISSUE: EPR comparison rule doesn't support Web services gateways/routers Francisco Curbera
• RE: NEW ISSUE: EPR comparison rule doesn't support Web services gateways/routers Ugo Corda
• Re: NEW ISSUE: EPR comparison rule doesn't support Web services gateways/routers Mark Baker
• RE: NEW ISSUE: EPR comparison rule doesn't support Web services gateways/routers paul.downey@bt.com
• Re: NEW ISSUE: EPR comparison rule doesn't support Web services gateways/routers Marc Hadley
• RE: NEW ISSUE: EPR comparison rule doesn't support Web services gateways/routers Francisco Curbera
• New TAG Issue: endPointRef-47 (was Re: New issue; WS-Addressing SOAP binding & app protocols) Stuart Williams
• Re: i043 comparison of refps Rich Salz
• Re: NEW ISSUE: EPR comparison rule doesn't support Web services gateways/routers Rich Salz
• Re: Agenda: WS-A telcon 2005-01-24 Marc Hadley

Tuesday, 25 January 2005

• RE: NEW ISSUE: EPR comparison rule doesn't support Web services gateways/routers Ugo Corda
• Re: NEW ISSUE: EPR comparison rule doesn't support Web services gateways/routers Francisco Curbera
• Re: NEW ISSUE: EPR comparison rule doesn't support Web services gateways/routers Mark Baker
• RE: NEW ISSUE: EPR comparison rule doesn't support Web services gateways/routers Yalcinalp, Umit
• NEW ISSUE: EPR comparison rule doesn't support Web services gateways/routers Francisco Curbera
• Re: issue 1 on editor's copy Mark Nottingham
• RE: issue 1 on editor's copy Francisco Curbera
• RE: Issue 7 - processing model for SOAP headers noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com
• RE: issue 1 on editor's copy Martin Gudgin
• issue 1 on editor's copy Francisco Curbera

Monday, 24 January 2005

• Minutes of the 2005-01-24 telconference Mark Nottingham

Saturday, 22 January 2005

• Agenda: WS-A telcon 2005-01-24 Mark Nottingham

Friday, 21 January 2005

• Minutes of the 2005-01-[17,18,19] Melbourne F2F Mark Nottingham
• Re: NEW ISSUE: Comparison of URIs used as identifiers. [i046] Mark Nottingham
• Re: NEW ISSUE: Action defaults don't work with URNs. [i045] Mark Nottingham
• Re: NEW ISSUE: Definition of the rules to reply to a message in Core 3.2 [i044] Mark Nottingham
• Re: NEW ISSUE: Comparison of refps [i043] Mark Nottingham

Thursday, 20 January 2005

• RE: EPR to UDDI Mapping noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com
• RE: Issue #1 proposed resolution Savas Parastatidis
• Re: Issue #1 proposed resolution Rich Salz
• RE: EPR to UDDI Mapping Harris Reynolds
• Re: Issue i009 - Multiple actions. Proposal Mark Little
• RE: Issue i009 - Multiple actions. Proposal Martin Gudgin
• Re: Issue i009 - Multiple actions. Proposal Mark Little
• Re: Issue i009 - Multiple actions. Proposal Doug Davis
• RE: Issue i009 - Multiple actions. Proposal Savas Parastatidis
• Issue i009 - Multiple actions. Proposal Martin Gudgin
• RE: EPR to UDDI Mapping Vinoski, Stephen
• Re: Issue #1 proposed resolution Mark Little
• RE: Issue #1 proposed resolution Ugo Corda
• Re: Issue #1 proposed resolution Mark Little
• RE: EPR to UDDI Mapping Vikas Deolaliker
• Re: Issue #1 proposed resolution Mark Baker

Wednesday, 19 January 2005

• Re: Issue #1 proposed resolution Mark Little
• RE: EPR to UDDI Mapping Harris Reynolds
• EPR to UDDI Mapping Vikas Deolaliker
• problems faced by ws-addr with WSDL 2.0 extensibility paul.downey@bt.com
• RE: NEW ISSUE: Comparison of URIs used as identifiers. Jonathan Marsh
• New issue -- wsdl specific things in core Anish Karmarkar

Tuesday, 18 January 2005

• Re: Issue #1 proposed resolution Tom Rutt
• Issue i020, subissue 3 proposal Anish Karmarkar
• Re: Issue #1 proposed resolution Mark Baker
• Re: Issue #1 proposed resolution Tom Rutt
• Re: Issue #1 proposed resolution Tom Rutt
• RE: Issue #1 proposed resolution Savas Parastatidis
• RE: NEW ISSUE: Action defaults don't work with URNs. Savas Parastatidis
• RE: Issue 7 - processing model for SOAP headers Tim Ewald
• RE: Issue 7 - processing model for SOAP headers Tim Ewald
• Issue i020 -- restate the subissues in issue i020 Anish Karmarkar
• RE: NEW ISSUE: Action defaults don't work with URNs. paul.downey@bt.com

Monday, 17 January 2005

• RE: NEW ISSUE: Action defaults don't work with URNs. Jonathan Marsh
• RE: NEW ISSUE: Comparison of refps Martin Gudgin
• Re: NEW ISSUE: Comparison of refps Marc Hadley
• Re: Issue #1 proposed resolution Mark Baker
• Re: Issue #1 proposed resolution Tom Rutt
• RE: Issue #1 proposed resolution Francisco Curbera
• RE: Issue #1 proposed resolution Bob Freund
• Re: Issue #1 proposed resolution Francisco Curbera
• Re: Issue #1 proposed resolution Mark Baker
• Re: Issue #1 proposed resolution Hugo Haas
• RE: Issue 7 - processing model for SOAP headers Tim Ewald
• Re: NEW ISSUE: Action defaults don't work with URNs. Mark Baker
• Re: Issue #1 proposed resolution Mark Baker
• RE: Issue #1 proposed resolution David Orchard
• Agenda, 19 Jan 2005 joint WS Description, WS Addressing FTF meeting Jonathan Marsh
• Issue 6 proposal rework Marc Hadley
• NEW ISSUE: Comparison of refps Marc Hadley
• Re: Issue #1 proposed resolution Mark Baker
• RE: Issue #1 proposed resolution paul.downey@bt.com
• RE: Issue #1 proposed resolution David Orchard
• Re: Issue #1 proposed resolution Mark Baker
• NEW ISSUE: Definition of the rules to reply to a message in Core 3.2 Hugo Haas
• Re: Alternatives for resolving subissue 1 in issue i017 Anish Karmarkar
• Issue 040: Processing Model for our SOAP Faults Hugo Haas

Sunday, 16 January 2005

• RE: Issue 7 - processing model for SOAP headers Doug Davis
• NEW ISSUE : Extensibility model needs a little fleshing out (processing model, understand/ignore semantics) Glen Daniels
• Issue #1 proposed resolution David Orchard
• i022 - Relationship to the SOAP binding framework (summary) Greg Truty
• Re: i009 - mustIgnore rule for multiple To, ReplyTo, etc. Tom Rutt

Friday, 14 January 2005

• Re: NEW ISSUE: Comparison of URIs used as identifiers. noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com
• NEW ISSUE: Comparison of URIs used as identifiers. Jonathan Marsh
• NEW ISSUE: Action defaults don't work with URNs. Jonathan Marsh
• i035: unique action values for faults Jonathan Marsh
• RE: Issue 7 - processing model for SOAP headers Tim Ewald
• RE: Issue 7 - processing model for SOAP headers Christopher B Ferris
• RE: Issue 7 - processing model for SOAP headers Doug Davis
• RE: Issue 7 - processing model for SOAP headers Tim Ewald
• RE: Issue 7 - processing model for SOAP headers Martin Gudgin
• RE: Issue 7 - processing model for SOAP headers Tim Ewald
• Interesting commentary on EPRs Martin Gudgin
• Review of WS-Chor Husband, Yin-Leng
• Issue i021 WSDL Extension for Addressing: status and discussion on requirements Hugo Haas

Thursday, 13 January 2005

• RE: Issue 7 - processing model for SOAP headers Tim Ewald
• RE: i009 - mustIgnore rule for multiple To, ReplyTo, etc. Tim Ewald
• Agenda: 2005-01-17 F2F, Melbourne, VIC AU Mark Nottingham
• RE: i009 - mustIgnore rule for multiple To, ReplyTo, etc. Savas Parastatidis
• RE: i009 - mustIgnore rule for multiple To, ReplyTo, etc. Savas Parastatidis
• Re: i009 - mustIgnore rule for multiple To, ReplyTo, etc. Doug Davis

Wednesday, 12 January 2005

• RE: i009 - mustIgnore rule for multiple To, ReplyTo, etc. noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com
• RE: i009 - mustIgnore rule for multiple To, ReplyTo, etc. David Orchard
• Re: i009 - mustIgnore rule for multiple To, ReplyTo, etc. Tom Rutt
• RE: i009 - mustIgnore rule for multiple To, ReplyTo, etc. paul.downey@bt.com
• Issue 7 - processing model for SOAP headers Marc Hadley
• RE: i009 - mustIgnore rule for multiple To, ReplyTo, etc. Tim Ewald
• Re: Issue i001: what and how many things are we identifying? Tom Rutt
• RE: i009 - mustIgnore rule for multiple To, ReplyTo, etc. paul.downey@bt.com

Tuesday, 11 January 2005

• RE: i009 - mustIgnore rule for multiple To, ReplyTo, etc. noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com
• SOAP Detail Element Question Marc Hadley
• Minutes 20050110 Philippe Le Hegaret

Monday, 10 January 2005

• RE: i041: Testing Template Srinivas, Davanum M
• i041: Testing Template Harris Reynolds
• RE: Issue 6 (Message Property Optionality) Jonathan Marsh
• Re: Issue i017 - Purpose of the Action property -- my action item Anish Karmarkar
• Re: Issue i017 - Purpose of the Action property -- my action item Anish Karmarkar
• RE: Alternatives for resolving subissue 1 in issue i017 Yalcinalp, Umit
• Re: Alternatives for resolving subissue 1 in issue i017 Christopher B Ferris
• Re: Issue 6 (Message Property Optionality) Marc Hadley
• Alternatives for resolving subissue 1 in issue i017 Anish Karmarkar
• Re: i014 - Metadata Update/Reconciliation: a proposal Hugo Haas
• Re: Agenda: WS-A telcon 2005-01-10 Hugo Haas
• RE: i009 - mustIgnore rule for multiple To, ReplyTo, etc. paul.downey@bt.com
• ACTION 2004-12-20: Security of wrapper vs attribute Rich Salz
• Issue i001: what and how many things are we identifying? Hugo Haas

Saturday, 8 January 2005

• Agenda: WS-A telcon 2005-01-10 Mark Nottingham

Friday, 7 January 2005

• RE: Issue 6 (Message Property Optionality) Jonathan Marsh

Thursday, 6 January 2005

• Re: i022: Relationship to the SOAP Binding Framework: a SOAP Request MEP and OneWay HTTP Binding Marc Hadley
• Agenda: 2005-01-17 F2F, Melbourne, VIC AU [DRAFT] Mark Nottingham
• Re: xml:id and opacity of refp's Rich Salz
• RE: xml:id and opacity of refp's Ugo Corda
• Re: xml:id and opacity of refp's Francisco Curbera
• RE: xml:id and opacity of refp's Savas Parastatidis
• Re: xml:id and opacity of refp's Rich Salz

Wednesday, 5 January 2005

• Re: xml:id and opacity of refp's Marc Hadley
• Re: Problems with the SOAP binding Rich Salz
• Re: xml:id and opacity of refp's Francisco Curbera
• Re: xml:id and opacity of refp's Marc Hadley
• Re: Problems with the SOAP binding Michael McIntosh
• issue 038 - my action item Francisco Curbera
• RE: Problems with the SOAP binding Martin Gudgin

Tuesday, 4 January 2005

• Strawman proposal -- operation name mapping for issue i017 Anish Karmarkar

Monday, 3 January 2005

• Minutes of the 2005-01-03 teleconference Mark Nottingham
• Re: Problems with the SOAP binding Rich Salz
• RE: Problems with the SOAP binding Jonathan Marsh
• RE: Agenda: WS-A telcon 2005-01-03 Srinivas, Davanum M
• Re: i014 - Metadata Update/Reconciliation: a proposal Francisco Curbera
• Issue 017: new description and sub-issues Anish Karmarkar
• Re: NEW ISSUE; wsa:To interaction with application protocols Mark Baker
• Agenda: WS-A telcon 2005-01-03 Mark Nottingham
• Re: NEW ISSUE; wsa:To interaction with application protocols Mark Nottingham

Saturday, 1 January 2005

• Re: Issue i017 - Purpose of the Action property -- my action item Mark Nottingham

Last message date: Monday, 31 January 2005 23:33:26 UTC