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

A minor question

Action item for issue i021

Additional Proposals for Resolving Issue 50

Agenda: WS-A telcon 2005-03-07

Agenda: WS-A telcon 2005-03-14

Agenda: WS-A telcon 2005-03-21

Agenda: WS-A telcon 2005-03-28

Agenda: WS-A telcon 2005-03-28 [NOTE CHANGED TIMES]

Apologies for next meeting

Can ReferenceParameters contain message addressing properties defined in WS-Addresing core

CFP: International Conference on Service-Oriented Computing 2005 (ICSOC' 05)

Charter requirements [was: Process requirements for going to Last Call]

Compromise Proposal [was -- Re: TIBCO objects to last call]

Demonstrating the obvious

Editorial work on issue 53 complete

Full text for Issue 50 Proposal

Help on ws-addressing

i004: Text for reorganization of security sections

i007: new proposal for discussion (was Re: Issue 7 convo from Melbourne)

i050: Characterization of underlying issues and of proposals seen so far

i050: FaultTo fallback to ReplyTo rule

i050: Misalignment of treatment of reply messages and fault messages

Issue 50 and points west

Lack of layering in WS (Was: RFC 2616 (rfc2616) - Hypertext Transfer Protocol ...)

Last Call for Web Services Addressing Core and SOAP Binding

MAPs and SOAP

Minimal Proposed Changes to Resolve Issue 50

Minutes for the 2005-02-27 [resend]

Minutes for the 2005-02-27 F2F

Minutes for the 2005-03-28 teleconference

Minutes of the 2005-03-07 teleconference

Minutes of the 2005-03-14 teleconference

Minutes of the 2005-03-21 telconference

Minutes of the Web Services Addressing / TAG joint meeting

New ed drafts available.

NEW ISSUE: Definition of SOAP 1.2 (and 1.1) modules [i022]

NEW ISSUE: Dependencies with other groups

NEW ISSUE: Editorial: bad WSDL 1.1 namespace URI in Example 2.3

NEW ISSUE: Editorial: WSDL Binding prefix table

NEW ISSUE: Handling arbitrary sets of associated endpoints

NEW ISSUE: Handling arbitrary sets of associated endpoints [i054]

New issue: Notification relationship IRI

NEW ISSUE: Schema tweaks

NEW ISSUE: Schema tweaks [i053]

NEW ISSUE: Should MAPs be divorced from the rest of the specification?

Proposed resolution for Issue 50 (Misallignment of faut to and reply to )

Proposing a wsa:Security element

Questions about the current draft.

Relationship in in/out/request/reply

Reply-to and in-reply-to are orthogonal

Request/reply/reply

RFC 2616 (rfc2616) - Hypertext Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1Re: Minutes of the Web Services Addressing / TAG joint meeting

Section 2.3 - examples

Sketch for request/reply/alternate

SOAP properties in non request/reply interactions

Special treatment for well-known endpoints

Stepping back a bit ...

Summary of decision tree for Addr/Desc groups

Test Case Form Try-out

TIBCO objects to last call

TIBCO objects to last call (resend)

trust model and epr security

Updated Ed Drafts Available

Use of WSA in other specs.

What does it mean for a MAP to be "mandatory"?

What to do about MAP extensibility, if we need to

What, if anything, comes back on the HTTP reply if fault is non-default?

Which properties are optional depends on the protocol

Who depends on us?

Why is [destination] defined as an IRI?

WS_Addressing_Scenarios contribution from Microsoft

WSA Core minor editorial issues

WSA SOAP Binding minor editorial issues

wsa:Action in responses

wsa:Type still around?

WSRM from a WSA perspective

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