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

Thursday, 31 March 2005

• Re: Last Call for Web Services Addressing Core and SOAP Binding Mark Nottingham
• Last Call for Web Services Addressing Core and SOAP Binding Mark Nottingham
• Minutes for the 2005-03-28 teleconference Mark Nottingham

Wednesday, 30 March 2005

• WSRM from a WSA perspective David Hull

Monday, 28 March 2005

• Test Case Form Try-out paul.downey@bt.com
• Action item for issue i021 Francisco Curbera
• Re: Compromise Proposal [was -- Re: TIBCO objects to last call] David Hull

Sunday, 27 March 2005

• Re: Agenda: WS-A telcon 2005-03-28 [NOTE CHANGED TIMES] Mark Nottingham
• Agenda: WS-A telcon 2005-03-28 Mark Nottingham
• Re: Compromise Proposal [was -- Re: TIBCO objects to last call] Mark Nottingham

Saturday, 26 March 2005

• Compromise Proposal [was -- Re: TIBCO objects to last call] Anish Karmarkar
• Re: TIBCO objects to last call Anish Karmarkar
• NEW ISSUE: Editorial: bad WSDL 1.1 namespace URI in Example 2.3 Jonathan Marsh
• NEW ISSUE: Editorial: WSDL Binding prefix table Jonathan Marsh

Friday, 25 March 2005

• Re: TIBCO objects to last call David Hull
• RE: TIBCO objects to last call Jonathan Marsh
• Re: TIBCO objects to last call Mark Nottingham
• Re: NEW ISSUE: Dependencies with other groups Mark Nottingham
• Re: TIBCO objects to last call David Hull
• RE: TIBCO objects to last call Jonathan Marsh
• RE: TIBCO objects to last call (resend) Yalcinalp, Umit

Thursday, 24 March 2005

• NEW ISSUE: Dependencies with other groups David Hull
• Re: TIBCO objects to last call (resend) David Hull
• NEW ISSUE: Should MAPs be divorced from the rest of the specification? David Hull
• RE: TIBCO objects to last call (resend) David Orchard
• Re: TIBCO objects to last call (resend) David Hull
• RE: TIBCO objects to last call (resend) David Orchard
• Re: TIBCO objects to last call (resend) David Hull
• Re: TIBCO objects to last call Mark Nottingham
• RE: TIBCO objects to last call (resend) David Orchard
• Re: TIBCO objects to last call (resend) David Hull
• Re: TIBCO objects to last call Anish Karmarkar
• RE: TIBCO objects to last call (resend) Martin Gudgin
• RE: TIBCO objects to last call (resend) paul.downey@bt.com
• Re: TIBCO objects to last call (resend) David Hull
• RE: TIBCO objects to last call (resend) Abbie Barbir
• RE: TIBCO objects to last call (resend) Martin Gudgin

Wednesday, 23 March 2005

• TIBCO objects to last call David Hull

Thursday, 24 March 2005

• TIBCO objects to last call (resend) David Hull

Wednesday, 23 March 2005

• Re: Demonstrating the obvious Anish Karmarkar
• Minutes of the 2005-03-21 telconference Mark Nottingham
• RE: Demonstrating the obvious paul.downey@bt.com

Tuesday, 22 March 2005

• RE: Demonstrating the obvious Nilo Mitra (TX/EUS)
• Use of WSA in other specs. David Hull
• Demonstrating the obvious David Hull
• Questions about the current draft. David Hull

Monday, 21 March 2005

• Who depends on us? David Hull
• Re: Agenda: WS-A telcon 2005-03-21 Mark Nottingham
• Re: Agenda: WS-A telcon 2005-03-21 David Hull
• RE: Agenda: WS-A telcon 2005-03-21 David Orchard
• Re: MAPs and SOAP Anish Karmarkar
• WS_Addressing_Scenarios contribution from Microsoft Jonathan Marsh
• Stepping back a bit ... David Hull
• RE: MAPs and SOAP Jonathan Marsh
• Re: MAPs and SOAP David Hull
• RE: wsa:Action in responses Nilo Mitra (TX/EUS)
• Re: wsa:Action in responses Hugo Haas

Sunday, 20 March 2005

• CFP: International Conference on Service-Oriented Computing 2005 (ICSOC' 05) Francisco Curbera
• Agenda: WS-A telcon 2005-03-21 Mark Nottingham
• Re: NEW ISSUE: Handling arbitrary sets of associated endpoints [i054] Mark Nottingham

Saturday, 19 March 2005

• RE: A minor question Rogers, Tony
• RE: MAPs and SOAP Jonathan Marsh

Friday, 18 March 2005

• RE: A minor question Martin Gudgin
• RE: What does it mean for a MAP to be "mandatory"? Jonathan Marsh
• Re: MAPs and SOAP David Hull
• RE: wsa:Action in responses Jonathan Marsh
• RE: MAPs and SOAP Jonathan Marsh
• Re: A minor question Marc Hadley
• RE: A minor question Martin Gudgin
• RE: A minor question Jonathan Marsh
• What does it mean for a MAP to be "mandatory"? David Hull
• RE: A minor question Martin Gudgin
• Re: A minor question Marc Hadley
• Re: wsa:Action in responses Conor P. Cahill
• Re: wsa:Action in responses Hugo Haas
• RE: A minor question Martin Gudgin
• RE: A minor question Rogers, Tony
• Re: A minor question Mark Baker
• Re: MAPs and SOAP David Hull
• RE: A minor question noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com
• RE: A minor question Christopher B Ferris
• Re: MAPs and SOAP Anish Karmarkar

Thursday, 17 March 2005

• RE: A minor question Rich Salz

Friday, 18 March 2005

• Re: MAPs and SOAP Mark Nottingham

Thursday, 17 March 2005

• RE: MAPs and SOAP David Orchard
• RE: A minor question Martin Gudgin
• Re: A minor question Mark Baker
• Re: A minor question David Hull
• RE: A minor question Martin Gudgin
• Which properties are optional depends on the protocol David Hull
• Reply-to and in-reply-to are orthogonal David Hull
• Re: MAPs and SOAP Anish Karmarkar
• Special treatment for well-known endpoints David Hull
• Sketch for request/reply/alternate David Hull
• RE: MAPs and SOAP David Orchard
• Re: MAPs and SOAP Anish Karmarkar
• Re: MAPs and SOAP Anish Karmarkar

Wednesday, 16 March 2005

• RE: wsa:Action in responses Nilo Mitra (TX/EUS)
• Re: MAPs and SOAP David Hull
• Re: MAPs and SOAP David Hull
• RE: MAPs and SOAP David Orchard
• Re: MAPs and SOAP Marc Hadley
• Re: MAPs and SOAP David Hull
• Re: MAPs and SOAP Marc Hadley
• Re: MAPs and SOAP David Hull
• Re: Charter requirements [was: Process requirements for going to Last Call] Hugo Haas
• Re: MAPs and SOAP Marc Hadley
• Re: NEW ISSUE: Handling arbitrary sets of associated endpoints David Hull
• Re: Charter requirements [was: Process requirements for going to Last Call] David Hull
• Minutes of the 2005-03-14 teleconference Mark Nottingham
• Re: MAPs and SOAP Anish Karmarkar

Tuesday, 15 March 2005

• Re: Charter requirements [was: Process requirements for going to Last Call] Marc Hadley
• Charter requirements [was: Process requirements for going to Last Call] Mark Nottingham
• RE: NEW ISSUE: Handling arbitrary sets of associated endpoints Savas Parastatidis
• RE: wsa:Action in responses Glen Daniels
• SOAP properties in non request/reply interactions David Hull
• Re: wsa:Action in responses Conor P. Cahill
• Re: wsa:Action in responses Hugo Haas
• Re: wsa:Action in responses Conor P. Cahill
• i050: Characterization of underlying issues and of proposals seen so far Hugo Haas
• MAPs and SOAP David Hull
• RE: RFC 2616 (rfc2616) - Hypertext Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1Re: Minutes of the Web Services Addressing / TAG joint meeting Paul Cotton
• Re: Proposing a wsa:Security element Mark Baker

Monday, 14 March 2005

• Re: i050: FaultTo fallback to ReplyTo rule Doug Davis
• i050: FaultTo fallback to ReplyTo rule Jonathan Marsh
• Re: Proposing a wsa:Security element Marc Hadley
• Re: Full text for Issue 50 Proposal Tom Rutt
• RE: Proposing a wsa:Security element Ashok Malhotra
• Full text for Issue 50 Proposal Tom Rutt
• Re: Proposing a wsa:Security element Marc Hadley
• Re: NEW ISSUE: Handling arbitrary sets of associated endpoints David Hull
• Re: Proposing a wsa:Security element Marc Hadley
• Re: Why is [destination] defined as an IRI? Anish Karmarkar
• Re: Help on ws-addressing Mark Nottingham
• Re: Proposing a wsa:Security element Rich Salz
• Re: Proposing a wsa:Security element Hugo Haas
• RE: Proposing a wsa:Security element Ashok Malhotra
• Re: Proposing a wsa:Security element Rich Salz
• Re: Proposing a wsa:Security element Hugo Haas
• RE: RFC 2616 (rfc2616) - Hypertext Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1Re: Minutes of the Web Services Addressing / TAG joint meeting Rice, Ed (HP.com)
• Help on ws-addressing Eran Chinthaka
• Section 2.3 - examples Glen Daniels

Sunday, 13 March 2005

• RE: trust model and epr security Rich Salz

Saturday, 12 March 2005

• RE: trust model and epr security Srinivas, Davanum M
• Re: WSA SOAP Binding minor editorial issues Marc Hadley
• trust model and epr security Rich Salz
• Proposing a wsa:Security element Rich Salz
• Agenda: WS-A telcon 2005-03-14 Mark Nottingham

Friday, 11 March 2005

• RE: NEW ISSUE: Handling arbitrary sets of associated endpoints Rogers, Tony
• Re: NEW ISSUE: Handling arbitrary sets of associated endpoints David Hull
• Re: NEW ISSUE: Handling arbitrary sets of associated endpoints Rich Salz
• Re: NEW ISSUE: Handling arbitrary sets of associated endpoints David Hull
• Re: NEW ISSUE: Handling arbitrary sets of associated endpoints Rich Salz
• wsa:Action in responses Conor P. Cahill
• Re: What, if anything, comes back on the HTTP reply if fault is non-default? David Hull
• Re: NEW ISSUE: Handling arbitrary sets of associated endpoints David Hull
• RE: What, if anything, comes back on the HTTP reply if fault is non-default? Jonathan Marsh
• RE: NEW ISSUE: Handling arbitrary sets of associated endpoints Jonathan Marsh

Thursday, 10 March 2005

• RE: WSA SOAP Binding minor editorial issues Jonathan Marsh
• RE: WSA SOAP Binding minor editorial issues Jonathan Marsh
• NEW ISSUE: Handling arbitrary sets of associated endpoints David Hull
• Re: Minutes for the 2005-02-27 F2F Mark Nottingham
• What, if anything, comes back on the HTTP reply if fault is non-default? David Hull
• Lack of layering in WS (Was: RFC 2616 (rfc2616) - Hypertext Transfer Protocol ...) Tim Berners-Lee
• Re: Minutes for the 2005-02-27 F2F Hugo Haas
• RE: Why is [destination] defined as an IRI? Savas Parastatidis
• RE: Why is [destination] defined as an IRI? Rogers, Tony
• Why is [destination] defined as an IRI? HF/EAB
• Re: WSA Core minor editorial issues Marc Hadley
• Re: WSA SOAP Binding minor editorial issues Marc Hadley
• Re: WSA SOAP Binding minor editorial issues Marc Hadley

Wednesday, 9 March 2005

• Re: Minutes for the 2005-02-27 F2F Mark Nottingham
• WSA SOAP Binding minor editorial issues Jonathan Marsh
• RE: Editorial work on issue 53 complete Jonathan Marsh
• Re: Minutes for the 2005-02-27 F2F Hugo Haas
• Re: wsa:Type still around? Marc Hadley
• Re: New issue: Notification relationship IRI Anish Karmarkar
• RE: Editorial work on issue 53 complete Vinoski, Stephen

Tuesday, 8 March 2005

• Re: Editorial work on issue 53 complete Mark Nottingham
• RE: Editorial work on issue 53 complete Yalcinalp, Umit
• Minutes of the 2005-03-07 teleconference Mark Nottingham
• Editorial work on issue 53 complete Marc Hadley
• What to do about MAP extensibility, if we need to David Hull
• Re: NEW ISSUE: Schema tweaks [i053] Mark Nottingham
• A minor question David Hull
• Request/reply/reply David Hull
• Issue 50 and points west David Hull
• WSA Core minor editorial issues Jonathan Marsh
• RE: RFC 2616 (rfc2616) - Hypertext Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1Re: Minutes of the Web Services Addressing / TAG joint meeting Rich Salz
• RE: RFC 2616 (rfc2616) - Hypertext Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1Re: Minutes of the Web Services Addressing / TAG joint meeting Paul Cotton
• RE: RFC 2616 (rfc2616) - Hypertext Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1Re: Minutes of the Web Services Addressing / TAG joint meeting Rice, Ed (HP.com)
• Re: Additional Proposals for Resolving Issue 50 Tom Rutt
• Additional Proposals for Resolving Issue 50 Tom Rutt

Monday, 7 March 2005

• RE: RFC 2616 (rfc2616) - Hypertext Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1Re: Minutes of the Web Services Addressing / TAG joint meeting Paul Cotton
• Minimal Proposed Changes to Resolve Issue 50 Tom Rutt
• Re: i050: Misalignment of treatment of reply messages and fault messages Doug Davis
• Re: Minutes of the Web Services Addressing / TAG joint meeting Mark Nottingham
• RE: RFC 2616 (rfc2616) - Hypertext Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1Re: Minutes of the Web Services Addressing / TAG joint meeting Rice, Ed (HP.com)
• Re: Minutes of the Web Services Addressing / TAG joint meeting Anish Karmarkar
• i050: Misalignment of treatment of reply messages and fault messages Jonathan Marsh
• Re: Minutes of the Web Services Addressing / TAG joint meeting Rich Salz
• Re: Minutes of the Web Services Addressing / TAG joint meeting Mark Nottingham
• Re: RFC 2616 (rfc2616) - Hypertext Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1Re: Minutes of the Web Services Addressing / TAG joint meeting Rich Salz
• wsa:Type still around? Conor P. Cahill
• RFC 2616 (rfc2616) - Hypertext Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1Re: Minutes of the Web Services Addressing / TAG joint meeting noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com
• Re: Minutes of the Web Services Addressing / TAG joint meeting Rich Salz

Saturday, 5 March 2005

• Re: Minutes of the Web Services Addressing / TAG joint meeting noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com
• Agenda: WS-A telcon 2005-03-07 Mark Nottingham

Friday, 4 March 2005

• Minutes for the 2005-02-27 [resend] Mark Nottingham
• Re: Minutes of the Web Services Addressing / TAG joint meeting Rich Salz
• Re: Minutes of the Web Services Addressing / TAG joint meeting noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com
• Fw: Proposed resolution for Issue 50 (Misallignment of faut to and reply to ) Francisco Curbera
• Re: Proposed resolution for Issue 50 (Misallignment of faut to and reply to ) Francisco Curbera
• Re: Minutes of the Web Services Addressing / TAG joint meeting Mark Baker

Thursday, 3 March 2005

• Minutes for the 2005-02-27 F2F Mark Nottingham
• RE: NEW ISSUE: Schema tweaks Christopher B Ferris
• Apologies for next meeting Rogers, Tony
• Minutes of the Web Services Addressing / TAG joint meeting Mark Nottingham
• Re: Summary of decision tree for Addr/Desc groups Sanjiva Weerawarana
• RE: Proposed resolution for Issue 50 (Misallignment of faut to and reply to ) Winkler, Steve
• Re: Proposed resolution for Issue 50 (Misallignment of faut to and reply to ) Francisco Curbera
• Fw: Proposed resolution for Issue 50 (Misallignment of faut to and reply to ) Francisco Curbera
• Re: New issue: Notification relationship IRI Conor P. Cahill
• RE: NEW ISSUE: Schema tweaks Rich Salz
• RE: NEW ISSUE: Schema tweaks Rogers, Tony
• Re: New issue: Notification relationship IRI Rich Salz
• Re: NEW ISSUE: Schema tweaks Rich Salz

Wednesday, 2 March 2005

• Re: Proposed resolution for Issue 50 (Misallignment of faut to and reply to ) Doug Davis
• Re: Proposed resolution for Issue 50 (Misallignment of faut to and reply to ) Marc Hadley
• Re: Proposed resolution for Issue 50 (Misallignment of faut to and reply to ) David Hull
• Re: Proposed resolution for Issue 50 (Misallignment of faut to and reply to ) Tom Rutt
• Updated Ed Drafts Available Marc Hadley
• RE: Proposed resolution for Issue 50 (Misallignment of faut to and reply to ) Rogers, Tony
• RE: Proposed resolution for Issue 50 (Misallignment of faut to and reply to ) Doug Davis
• RE: Proposed resolution for Issue 50 (Misallignment of faut to and reply to ) Jonathan Marsh
• Re: Proposed resolution for Issue 50 (Misallignment of faut to and reply to ) Mark Peel
• New issue: Notification relationship IRI Conor P. Cahill
• Re: Proposed resolution for Issue 50 (Misallignment of faut to and reply to ) David Hull
• Re: Proposed resolution for Issue 50 (Misallignment of faut to and reply to ) Mark Little
• Re: Proposed resolution for Issue 50 (Misallignment of faut to and reply to ) Hugo Haas
• Re: NEW ISSUE: Schema tweaks Tom Rutt
• Re: Proposed resolution for Issue 50 (Misallignment of faut to and reply to ) Doug Davis
• Re: Proposed resolution for Issue 50 (Misallignment of faut to and reply to ) David Hull
• Re: NEW ISSUE: Schema tweaks Rich Salz

Tuesday, 1 March 2005

• Re: Proposed resolution for Issue 50 (Misallignment of faut to and reply to ) Tom Rutt
• Re: NEW ISSUE: Schema tweaks Tom Rutt
• Proposed resolution for Issue 50 (Misallignment of faut to and reply to ) Tom Rutt
• Re: NEW ISSUE: Schema tweaks Christopher B Ferris
• Can ReferenceParameters contain message addressing properties defined in WS-Addresing core Anish Karmarkar
• Re: i004: Text for reorganization of security sections Mark Nottingham
• Re: NEW ISSUE: Schema tweaks Anish Karmarkar
• RE: NEW ISSUE: Schema tweaks Rogers, Tony
• Re: NEW ISSUE: Schema tweaks Rich Salz
• Re: NEW ISSUE: Schema tweaks Anish Karmarkar
• Re: NEW ISSUE: Definition of SOAP 1.2 (and 1.1) modules [i022] Mark Nottingham
• Relationship in in/out/request/reply David Hull
• Re: i004: Text for reorganization of security sections Hugo Haas
• Re: i007: new proposal for discussion (was Re: Issue 7 convo from Melbourne) Mark Nottingham
• i007: new proposal for discussion (was Re: Issue 7 convo from Melbourne) Hugo Haas
• FW: Summary of decision tree for Addr/Desc groups Glen Daniels
• RE: New ed drafts available. Vinoski, Stephen

Last message date: Thursday, 31 March 2005 21:59:37 UTC