- From: Mark Nottingham <mark.nottingham@bea.com>
- Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2005 23:03:23 -0700
- To: "Yalcinalp, Umit" <umit.yalcinalp@sap.com>
- Cc: public-ws-addressing@w3.org
I've added topic headers and made other adjustments; please take a look. On 13/10/2005, at 7:54 PM, Mark Nottingham wrote: > > I e-mailed all of the resolutions that I had text for to the list, > so if it's not there, we don't have it unfortunately. > > I'll endeavour to add headers in the appropriate places. On Monday, > we can ask if there's any objection to changing the minutes to > reflect the text below. > > Regards, > > > On 13/10/2005, at 4:16 PM, Yalcinalp, Umit wrote: > > > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org >>> [mailto:public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of >>> Mark Nottingham >>> Sent: Thursday, Oct 06, 2005 11:34 AM >>> To: W3C WS Coordination Group >>> Subject: Minutes of the Palo Alto F2F >>> >>> ... are available for review at: >>> http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/addr/5/09/f2f-minutes.html >>> >>> and attached for convenience. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> I was about to send the resolution of cr4 to the WS-RX tc, but this >> little nagging detail stopped me. >> >> I hate to observe that the minutes are not very comprehensible in >> many >> places. For example, the issue that I raised is cr4. The >> discussion is >> not clearly marked in the minutes ("mnot: Next is Umit's anon URI" >> will >> be hard to remember 4 months from now on!). Same with other CR >> issues, >> like the next one Glen raised. It is simply buried in the text >> since it >> is not marked with a header. I think the minutes need some editing >> before we can accept the minutes, like adding appropriate delimiters >> with headers. >> >> I recall regarding the cr4 issue that I have raised from the ws-rx >> tc, >> we had a clear writeup text that was obvious at the time >> (projected from >> Mark's Mac during the f2f), but I do not really see the full text >> in the >> minutes, but only two snippets of text to change >> >> Based on my recollection, this is what I thought we agreed on: >> >> Instead of the current text in SOAP binding spec in section 3.5 >> >> {When "http://www.w3.org/@@@@/@@/addressing/anonymous" is >> specified as >> the address of the ReplyTo or FaultTo EPR, the underlying SOAP >> protocol >> binding provides a channel to the specified endpoint. Any underlying >> protocol binding supporting the SOAP request-response message >> exchange >> pattern provides such a channel. For instance, the SOAP 1.2 HTTP >> binding[SOAP 1.2 Part 2: Adjuncts] puts the reply message in the HTTP >> response. >> } >> >> We will have >> >> {When "http://www.w3.org/@@@@/@@/addressing/anonymous" is >> specified as >> the address of an EPR, such as the ReplyTo or FaultTo EPR, the >> underlying SOAP protocol binding provides a channel to the specified >> endpoint. Any underlying protocol binding supporting the SOAP >> request-response message exchange pattern provides such a channel for >> response messages. For instance, the SOAP 1.2 HTTP binding[SOAP >> 1.2 Part >> 2: Adjuncts] puts the reply message in the HTTP response. >> } >> >> Note that the only difference with what is recorded in the minutes >> (and >> reflected to the CR resolution) and what I remember is the clause (", >> such as ...") which appears editorial, but I thought I should >> bring this >> up. In my opinion, my recollection provides clearer text, but I >> want to >> check since I want to send it to the ws-rx tc. >> >> Mark, do you still have the full text on your Mac to finalize this? >> >> Thanks. >> >> --umit >> >> >> >> >> > > > -- > Mark Nottingham Principal Technologist > Office of the CTO BEA Systems > > > > > -- Mark Nottingham Principal Technologist Office of the CTO BEA Systems
Received on Friday, 14 October 2005 06:12:33 UTC