- From: Doug Davis <dug@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Wed, 12 May 2010 19:18:13 -0400
- To: public-ws-resource-access-comments@w3.org
- Message-ID: <OFDE459B77.7E0E808D-ON85257721.007FF8EE-85257721.00800628@us.ibm.com>
(forwarding) Antoine, thank you for opening this issue. The WG discussed it today and we decided to modify the following sentence in the WSRA specs: All messages defined by this specification MUST be sent to a Web service that is addressable by an EPR (see [WS-Addressing]). such that it now says: All messages defined by this specification MUST conform to the WS-Addressing specifications and be sent to a Web service that is addressable by an EPR ( see [WS-Addressing]). Please let us know if this addresses your concern to your satisfaction. thanks -Doug ______________________________________________________ STSM | Standards Architect | IBM Software Group (919) 254-6905 | IBM 444-6905 | dug@us.ibm.com The more I'm around some people, the more I like my dog. bugzilla@jessica.w3.org Sent by: public-ws-resource-access-notifications-request@w3.org 05/10/2010 03:58 PM To public-ws-resource-access-notifications@w3.org cc Subject [Bug 9699] New: Clarify that WS-Addressing support is required http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=9699 Summary: Clarify that WS-Addressing support is required Product: WS-Resource Access Version: LC Platform: PC OS/Version: Windows XP Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P2 Component: All AssignedTo: public-ws-resource-access-notifications@w3.org ReportedBy: antoine.mensch@odonata.fr QAContact: public-ws-resource-access-notifications@w3.org While the specs appear to be written assuming that WS-Addressing must be used in all exchanges, it is never stated explicitly. It could be useful to add such a statement, either in the compliance section or as an additional section at the beginning of the specs. -- Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug. You are the assignee for the bug.
Received on Wednesday, 12 May 2010 23:18:46 UTC