Greg - I seem to have misunderstood the use of WS-MD in the spec. My concern was over requireing it as part of the normative material. Its use as an example is fine, and it would be good to also show an example of WS-Addressing - I will see if I can do that.
Anyway, apologies about raising an issue on a misunderstanding.
Eric
-----Original Message-----
From: Greg Pavlik [mailto:]
Sent: Tuesday, June 01, 2004 11:49 AM
To: Greg Pavlik
Cc: Newcomer, Eric; Mark Little; ws-caf-editors
Subject: Re: [ws-caf-editors] Re: Latest revisions
Eric, I reviewed all your comments. They seem reasonable to me, but I'd
like to talk about the addressing issue, since we need to be able to
say/show something about how the ws reference model works. Does anyone
have a proposal on how we can do this without using some example that
relies on an addressing spec of some kind? The example that is in the
text is normative only with respect to the open content model -- there
is no normative statement as to what addressing scheme is used. Is this OK?
Also, bear in mind that if WS-Addressing goes to the W3C in September
(and assuming the community converges on the work in the W3C) we can
always change the spec to reflect this development. Is that
satisfactory? The important point in my mind is that we need to nail
down the specification of the open content model in the near term so we
can move forward.
Also -- and perhaps most important -- do you have a time frame in which
you can integrate your changes?
Greg
Greg Pavlik wrote:
