public-ws-async-tf@w3.org from February 2005 by date

Monday, 28 February 2005

• Breakfast tomorrow Glen Daniels

Friday, 25 February 2005

• RE: Summary of decision tree for Addr/Desc groups Liu, Kevin
• Summary of decision tree for Addr/Desc groups Glen Daniels

Wednesday, 23 February 2005

• Trusting callback endpoints David Hull

Tuesday, 22 February 2005

• Agenda: 2005-02-23 Async TF telcon Glen Daniels
• DRAFT minutes from 2005-02-16 telcon Glen Daniels
• Re: Usecase 4: Asynch req-res -- polling style David Hull

Monday, 21 February 2005

• Re: Usecase 4: Asynch req-res -- polling style Anish Karmarkar
• Re: Usecase 4: Asynch req-res -- polling style Anish Karmarkar

Thursday, 17 February 2005

• RE: Usecase 4: Asynch req-res -- polling style michael.eder@nokia.com

Wednesday, 16 February 2005

• Re: Point of view in operation descriptions. Anish Karmarkar
• Re: Use case 3 Roberto Chinnici
• Re: Usecase 4: Asynch req-res -- polling style David Hull
• Re: Usecase 4: Asynch req-res -- polling style Anish Karmarkar
• RE: Additional use case: 7 "Reversed HTTP binding for SOAP". michael.eder@nokia.com
• Re: Use case 3 Anish Karmarkar
• Re: Additional use case: 7 "Reversed HTTP binding for SOAP". David Hull
• RE: Use case 3 Ugo Corda
• Re: Use case 6 David Hull
• Re: Point of view in operation descriptions. David Hull
• Additional use case: 7 "Reversed HTTP binding for SOAP". michael.eder@nokia.com
• RE: Point of view in operation descriptions. Ugo Corda
• RE: Use case 3 Liu, Kevin
• RE: Use case 1 - one way Liu, Kevin
• RE: Use case 6 Liu, Kevin
• Re: Use case 1 - one way Marc Hadley
• RE: Use case 1 - one way Liu, Kevin
• Point of view in operation descriptions. David Hull
• Re: Usecase 4: Asynch req-res -- polling style David Hull
• Re: Use case 3 David Hull
• Usecase 4: Asynch req-res -- polling style Anish Karmarkar
• RE: Use case 3 Yalcinalp, Umit
• Re: Use case 3 Anish Karmarkar
• Use case 5 Yalcinalp, Umit

Tuesday, 15 February 2005

• Use case 3 Roberto Chinnici
• Use case 1 - one way Marc Hadley
• RE: Use case 6 Glen Daniels
• Re: Use case 6 David Hull
• Use Case #2, sync req-resp over the same connection Glen Daniels
• Agenda: 2005-02-16 Async TF telcon Glen Daniels
• REMINDER : Action Items re: Use Cases Glen Daniels
• RE: Use case 6 Glen Daniels

Friday, 11 February 2005

• Re: Scoping multi-transport / async bindings for WSDL David Hull
• Use case 6 David Hull

Thursday, 10 February 2005

• RE: Minutes of the 2005-02-09 teleconference Glen Daniels
• Minutes of the 2005-02-09 teleconference Hugo Haas

Wednesday, 9 February 2005

• RE: Initial thoughts on WSDL2.0 LC101 - do we need message level binding properties? Jonathan Marsh
• Use case similar to #6, but sync/async decision is made at deployment time, not run-time Ugo Corda
• Async use cases David Hull
• RE: Agenda: 2005-02-08 Async TF telcon Asir Vedamuthu
• RE: Initial thoughts on WSDL2.0 LC101 - do we need message level binding properties? Yalcinalp, Umit
• Re: Agenda: 2005-02-08 Async TF telcon Anish Karmarkar
• RE: Initial thoughts on WSDL2.0 LC101 - do we need message level binding properties? Jonathan Marsh
• Re: Scoping multi-transport / async bindings for WSDL Anish Karmarkar
• RE: Scoping multi-transport / async bindings for WSDL Glen Daniels

Tuesday, 8 February 2005

• RE: Scoping multi-transport / async bindings for WSDL Liu, Kevin
• Agenda: 2005-02-08 Async TF telcon Glen Daniels
• Scoping multi-transport / async bindings for WSDL Glen Daniels

Monday, 7 February 2005

• RE: Initial thoughts on WSDL2.0 LC101 - do we need message level binding properties? Asir Vedamuthu
• Re: Initial thoughts on WSDL2.0 LC101 - do we need message level binding properties? Amelia A Lewis
• RE: Initial thoughts on WSDL2.0 LC101 - do we need message level binding properties? Liu, Kevin
• Initial thoughts on WSDL2.0 LC101 - do we need message level binding properties? Liu, Kevin
• RE: Initial thoughts on WSDL2.0 LC101 - do we need message level binding properties? Asir Vedamuthu
• Initial thoughts on WSDL2.0 LC101 - do we need message level binding properties? Liu, Kevin

Friday, 4 February 2005

• Mailing list failures: explanation and possible fix Simon J. Hernandez

Thursday, 3 February 2005

• Re: HTTP based async request-response Hugo Haas
• RE: HTTP based async request-response michael.eder@nokia.com
• Re: HTTP based async request-response Rich Salz
• Re: HTTP based async request-response Marc Hadley
• RE: HTTP based async request-response michael.eder@nokia.com
• Re: HTTP based async request-response Marc Hadley
• Re: HTTP based async request-response Marc Hadley
• Re: HTTP based async request-response Marc Hadley
• RE: HTTP based async request-response michael.eder@nokia.com
• Re: HTTP based async request-response Rich Salz

Wednesday, 2 February 2005

• Re: HTTP based async request-response Anish Karmarkar
• Re: HTTP based async request-response Anish Karmarkar
• RE: HTTP based async request-response Ugo Corda
• Re: HTTP based async request-response Marc Hadley
• RE: HTTP based async request-response Ugo Corda
• HTTP based async request-response Marc Hadley
• Minutes of the 2005-02-02 teleconference Mark Nottingham
• RE: Initial thoughts on wire level messages (and bindings) Liu, Kevin
• Re: Initial thoughts on wire level messages (and bindings) Hugo Haas
• RE: Agenda: 2004-02-01 WS-Async TF teleconference Yalcinalp, Umit

Tuesday, 1 February 2005

• Agenda: 2004-02-01 WS-Async TF teleconference Mark Nottingham

Last message date: Monday, 28 February 2005 20:37:35 UTC