Last Call for Web Services Addressing Core and SOAP Binding
Minutes for the 2005-03-28 teleconference
WSRM from a WSA perspective
Test Case Form Try-out
Action item for issue i021
Agenda: WS-A telcon 2005-03-28
NEW ISSUE: Editorial: bad WSDL 1.1 namespace URI in Example 2.3
NEW ISSUE: Editorial: WSDL Binding prefix table
NEW ISSUE: Dependencies with other groups
NEW ISSUE: Should MAPs be divorced from the rest of the specification?
TIBCO objects to last call
- Re: TIBCO objects to last call
- Re: TIBCO objects to last call
- RE: TIBCO objects to last call
- RE: TIBCO objects to last call
TIBCO objects to last call (resend)
- RE: TIBCO objects to last call (resend)
- RE: TIBCO objects to last call (resend)
- RE: TIBCO objects to last call (resend)
- RE: TIBCO objects to last call (resend)
- RE: TIBCO objects to last call (resend)
- RE: TIBCO objects to last call (resend)
- RE: TIBCO objects to last call (resend)
- RE: TIBCO objects to last call (resend)
Minutes of the 2005-03-21 telconference
Use of WSA in other specs.
Demonstrating the obvious
Questions about the current draft.
Who depends on us?
WS_Addressing_Scenarios contribution from Microsoft
Stepping back a bit ...
CFP: International Conference on Service-Oriented Computing 2005 (ICSOC' 05)
Agenda: WS-A telcon 2005-03-21
What does it mean for a MAP to be "mandatory"?
Which properties are optional depends on the protocol
Reply-to and in-reply-to are orthogonal
Special treatment for well-known endpoints
Sketch for request/reply/alternate
Minutes of the 2005-03-14 teleconference
Charter requirements [was: Process requirements for going to Last Call]
- Re: Charter requirements [was: Process requirements for going to Last Call]
- Re: Charter requirements [was: Process requirements for going to Last Call]
SOAP properties in non request/reply interactions
i050: Characterization of underlying issues and of proposals seen so far
MAPs and SOAP
- Re: MAPs and SOAP
- RE: MAPs and SOAP
- RE: MAPs and SOAP
- RE: MAPs and SOAP
- RE: MAPs and SOAP
- RE: MAPs and SOAP
- RE: MAPs and SOAP
i050: FaultTo fallback to ReplyTo rule
Full text for Issue 50 Proposal
Help on ws-addressing
Section 2.3 - examples
trust model and epr security
Proposing a wsa:Security element
Agenda: WS-A telcon 2005-03-14
wsa:Action in responses
- Re: wsa:Action in responses
- Re: wsa:Action in responses
- RE: wsa:Action in responses
- RE: wsa:Action in responses
- RE: wsa:Action in responses
- RE: wsa:Action in responses
NEW ISSUE: Handling arbitrary sets of associated endpoints
- RE: NEW ISSUE: Handling arbitrary sets of associated endpoints
- Re: NEW ISSUE: Handling arbitrary sets of associated endpoints
- RE: NEW ISSUE: Handling arbitrary sets of associated endpoints
- RE: NEW ISSUE: Handling arbitrary sets of associated endpoints
- Re: NEW ISSUE: Handling arbitrary sets of associated endpoints [i054]
What, if anything, comes back on the HTTP reply if fault is non-default?
Why is [destination] defined as an IRI?
WSA SOAP Binding minor editorial issues
- Re: WSA SOAP Binding minor editorial issues
- RE: WSA SOAP Binding minor editorial issues
- RE: WSA SOAP Binding minor editorial issues
Minutes of the 2005-03-07 teleconference
Editorial work on issue 53 complete
- RE: Editorial work on issue 53 complete
- RE: Editorial work on issue 53 complete
- RE: Editorial work on issue 53 complete
What to do about MAP extensibility, if we need to
Re: NEW ISSUE: Schema tweaks [i053]
A minor question
- RE: A minor question
- RE: A minor question
- RE: A minor question
- RE: A minor question
- RE: A minor question
- RE: A minor question
- RE: A minor question
- RE: A minor question
- RE: A minor question
- RE: A minor question
Request/reply/reply
Issue 50 and points west
WSA Core minor editorial issues
RE: RFC 2616 (rfc2616) - Hypertext Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1Re: Minutes of the Web Services Addressing / TAG joint meeting
- RE: RFC 2616 (rfc2616) - Hypertext Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1Re: Minutes of the Web Services Addressing / TAG joint meeting
- RE: RFC 2616 (rfc2616) - Hypertext Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1Re: Minutes of the Web Services Addressing / TAG joint meeting
Additional Proposals for Resolving Issue 50
Minimal Proposed Changes to Resolve Issue 50
i050: Misalignment of treatment of reply messages and fault messages
wsa:Type still around?
RFC 2616 (rfc2616) - Hypertext Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1Re: Minutes of the Web Services Addressing / TAG joint meeting
- Re: RFC 2616 (rfc2616) - Hypertext Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1Re: Minutes of the Web Services Addressing / TAG joint meeting
- RE: RFC 2616 (rfc2616) - Hypertext Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1Re: Minutes of the Web Services Addressing / TAG joint meeting
- RE: RFC 2616 (rfc2616) - Hypertext Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1Re: Minutes of the Web Services Addressing / TAG joint meeting
- RE: RFC 2616 (rfc2616) - Hypertext Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1Re: Minutes of the Web Services Addressing / TAG joint meeting
Agenda: WS-A telcon 2005-03-07
Minutes for the 2005-02-27 [resend]
Fw: Proposed resolution for Issue 50 (Misallignment of faut to and reply to )
Minutes for the 2005-02-27 F2F
Apologies for next meeting
Minutes of the Web Services Addressing / TAG joint meeting
- Re: Minutes of the Web Services Addressing / TAG joint meeting
- Re: Minutes of the Web Services Addressing / TAG joint meeting
- Re: Minutes of the Web Services Addressing / TAG joint meeting
RE: Proposed resolution for Issue 50 (Misallignment of faut to and reply to )
Fw: Proposed resolution for Issue 50 (Misallignment of faut to and reply to )
Updated Ed Drafts Available
RE: Proposed resolution for Issue 50 (Misallignment of faut to and reply to )
- RE: Proposed resolution for Issue 50 (Misallignment of faut to and reply to )
- RE: Proposed resolution for Issue 50 (Misallignment of faut to and reply to )
- Re: Proposed resolution for Issue 50 (Misallignment of faut to and reply to )
- Re: Proposed resolution for Issue 50 (Misallignment of faut to and reply to )
Re: Proposed resolution for Issue 50 (Misallignment of faut to and reply to )
New issue: Notification relationship IRI
Proposed resolution for Issue 50 (Misallignment of faut to and reply to )
- Re: Proposed resolution for Issue 50 (Misallignment of faut to and reply to )
- Re: Proposed resolution for Issue 50 (Misallignment of faut to and reply to )
- Re: Proposed resolution for Issue 50 (Misallignment of faut to and reply to )
- Re: Proposed resolution for Issue 50 (Misallignment of faut to and reply to )