RE: Issue LC50 - MEPs

Oops, wrong message to respond to. This was intended for the thread
"proposed definition of node".

Ugo

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Ugo Corda
> Sent: Monday, November 22, 2004 7:30 AM
> To: Sanjiva Weerawarana
> Cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Issue LC50 - MEPs
> 
> 
> 
> As far as I remember, there was a recent vote where it was 
> decided not to refer to the agent concept in the particular 
> context that the vote related to. 
> 
> I am not aware of any previous decision of avoiding any 
> future reference to the agent concept, or of avoiding any 
> reference to the WSA document. (If I missed such a decision, 
> please point it out to me).
> 
> Ugo
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Sanjiva Weerawarana [mailto:sanjiva@watson.ibm.com]
> > Sent: Sunday, November 21, 2004 5:12 PM
> > To: Ugo Corda; Yalcinalp, Umit; Amelia A Lewis
> > Cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org
> > Subject: Re: Issue LC50 - MEPs
> > 
> > 
> > "Ugo Corda" <UCorda@SeeBeyond.com> writes:
> > > 
> > > I see that the WS-Addressing WG is currently discussing 
> the idea of
> > > having WS-Addressing's EPRs that support multiple ports: 
> > > 
> > 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2004Nov/0347.
> > > ht
> > > ml .
> > 
> > That's a different problem .. that's about being able to pass
> > around a pointer to a service (endpoint) where that reference 
> > may indicate one or more alternate access paths.
> > 
> > Sanjiva.
> > 
> > 
> 
>

Received on Monday, 22 November 2004 15:36:40 UTC